Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 400 (JK)

Mohd. Shafi Sumbli v. University Of Kashmir

2012-07-09

Mansoor Ahmad Mir

body2012
1. Since these two petitions involve identical facts and common grounds of challenge, therefore, I am inclined to take both the writ petitions together for appropriate orders. Brief resume of facts: 2. The Respondent-University, vide Advertisement Notice bearing No. 10 (Apptt-Gen) Admn/KU dated 24.10.2003 (Annexure `A' to the writ petitions), invited applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the posts of Joint Registrars / Additional Controller of Examinations. The Respondent-University re-advertised the said posts vide advertisement Notice No. F10 (Apptt-Gen) RC/KU dated 12.07.2006 (annexure `B' to the writ petitions). Thereafter, Respondent-University for the third time put the said posts to advertisement vide Advertisement Notice No. F.10 (Apptt-Gen) RC/KU dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure `C' to the writ petitions). The petitioners and other eligible candidates applied and appeared before the Selection Committee and both the writ petitioners, admittedly, have made the grade, to which effect there is no dispute. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the Selection Committee made a proposal / recommendation, which was forwarded by the respondent No. 1 to the respondent No. 2 for his approval, so as to enable the Respondent-University to take further follow up action. Respondent No. 2, In turn, issued a communication bearing No. GS/ DS/ Jt. Reg/KU/ 09/5803 dated October, 12, 2009 and asked the University to spell out the reasons for providing only ten days for the candidates to apply for the posts in question (annexure `E'). Respondent No. 1 duly replied the same in terms of communication dated 14.10.2009. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, vide his communication dated 12.11.2009 (annexure `G'), conveyed to respondent No. 3 that proposal / recommendation has not been accepted. 4. It is submitted by the petitioners that after conclusion of the selection process, when nothing came out, they made a representation, but, instead of redressing their grievances, respondent No. 4 made a communication to respondent No. 3 vide No. GS/DS/ Reg/KU/10 dated August 2, 2010 (Annexure `H') intimating therein that, as has been desired by respondent No. 2, the recommendations of the Selection Committee be treated as withdrawn. 5. Feeling upset over the inaction of the respondents, i.e., the University authorities, the petitioners have questioned the same by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The writ petitions came up for consideration and on consideration notice was issued to the respondents for filing objections. 5. Feeling upset over the inaction of the respondents, i.e., the University authorities, the petitioners have questioned the same by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The writ petitions came up for consideration and on consideration notice was issued to the respondents for filing objections. While disposing of the CMPs of both the writ petitions, it was observed that in case posts in question are re-advertised, in such eventuality, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Court by laying a proper motion for grant of stay. 7. The respondents have filed their reply and resisted the averments made in both the writ petitions. 8. Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, learned appearing counsel for the respondents-University, was specifically asked to place on record the copy of the resolution, the mention of which is made in paragraph 3 of the reply. The respondents failed to do so; however, they laid a motion by way of supplementary affidavit, which was granted on 31.05.2012 with all just exceptions. What is seen from the reply of the respondents, particularly in paragraphs 1 & 2 thereof, it is specifically averred that no such resolution is available on the record maintained by the University. 9. In the given circumstances, it is not possible to finally adjudicate upon the matter at this stage. In this situation, I deem it just and proper to admit both the writ petitions. 10. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are admitted to hearing. Notice afresh. Mr. Kawoosa, appearing counsel for the respondents, waives notice on their behalf. He shall file detailed counter within two weeks positively with an advance copy to Mr. Jahangir Iqbal, learned appearing counsel for the petitioners, who shall file the rejoinder, if any, within one week thereafter. Both the writ petitions shall be listed immediately after three weeks with liberty to learned counsel for the parties to make a mention. 11. Interim directions passed by this Court on 23.12.2010 in both the writ petitions are made absolute. All the CMPs shall stand disposed of accordingly. 12. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order on the connected matter also.