Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 294 (JK)

Showkat M. Choudhary v. State

2013-05-10

Mansoor Ahmad Mir

body2013
1. With the instant writ petition, petitioner is knocking the doors of the court, allegedly, for second occasion. Petitioner is, contended to be, a doctor by profession holding the position of Lecturer in the discipline of General Medicine, Government Medical College, for short GMC, Jammu. 2. The controversy that this writ petition raises requires to be read together with the one that was raised previously by the medium of writ petition SWP no. 1372/2007, so that merits of the matter are dealt with properly and to find out as to whether the petitioner is meted out a treatment that compels him to file writ petition one after other, or it is him being just a litigious. BRIEF FACTS 3. Petitioner is seeking quashment of the letter no. PSC/DR/H&ME/23/2010 dated 18th October, 2010; Govt. order no. 627/HME/2012 dated 16th October, 2012, besides a direction in the name of respondents to treat the post of Lecturer of Medicine having become available in 2007 and subsequent thereto petitioner's placement on the said post retrospectively i.e., from 2007. 4. It is pleaded in the writ petition, that petitioner, after attaining the eligibility for the post of lecturer, in the year 2005, was fortunate to have the posts available too, therefore, was waiting for the requisite advertisement for the purpose. An Advertisement was later on issued vide notification no. 7-PSC of 2007 dated 4th July, 2007, by the respondents, inviting applications from the candidates, belonging to open merit category, for the post of lecturer in Chest Medicine. 5. Petitioner challenged the said advertisement notice on the ground that in the year 2000, five posts of lecturers were advertised by the respondents, two posts were meant for each Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, for short, SC & ST respectively, and one post was meant to be filled from amongst the open merit category. However, the said posts were filled up by selecting and appointing three candidates from open merit category, and one each from SC/ ST. The posts, meant for SC/ST, were utilized for the open merit category. Therefore, petitioner sought quashment of the advertisement notice so far it reflected the next quota of posts in the said category and sought a direction in the name of respondents that the posts, instead, be shown to have become available for the candidates belonging to SC/ST. 6. The posts, meant for SC/ST, were utilized for the open merit category. Therefore, petitioner sought quashment of the advertisement notice so far it reflected the next quota of posts in the said category and sought a direction in the name of respondents that the posts, instead, be shown to have become available for the candidates belonging to SC/ST. 6. It was further pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition supra that vide letter dated 31sl August, 2006, two posts in open category and one in RBA were referred to Public Service Commission, for short PSC, for selection. However, no selection was made for the posts in question allegedly because of change in Reservation Rules and because of the seniority of doctors belonging to GMC, Jammu and GMC, Srinagar, having been maintained separately. 7. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition supra was that since the quota of SC/ST had been utilized for open merit category candidates, therefore, the posts those have become available subsequently had to be distributed in such a way that candidates belonging to SC/ST also get their share. 8. This court vide its judgment dated 12th December, 2007, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to treat the advertised post as having been advertised for the candidates belonging to ST category. 9. The point/ issue which is being raised by the medium of instant petition is that since the post of lecturer was available with the respondents since 2006, and he having become fully eligible therefor, in the year 2005, his placement in the seniority of lecturers be directed to be adjusted accordingly. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended on record. 11. The respondents, in opposition to the writ petition, have come up with a stand that despite being eligible the petitioner's claim cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law because he was not borne on the lecturers' cadre at the time when he attained eligibility or when post became available. However, it is additionally pleaded that since the petitioner has competed for the post of lecturer and appointed also on the basis of court orders, therefore, respondent-PSC, can better answer the grievances projected by the petitioner. 12. However, it is additionally pleaded that since the petitioner has competed for the post of lecturer and appointed also on the basis of court orders, therefore, respondent-PSC, can better answer the grievances projected by the petitioner. 12. Taking into consideration the nature of the controversy coupled with the submissions made at the Bar by the counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh while taking into consideration the battle he has been fighting before the courts of law and the time taken by the respondents in redressing his grievances. The needful be done within a period of one month from the date copy of the judgment is acknowledged by them. 13. Before parting with the file, I deem it proper to place on record the discontentment over the way the public affairs are being dealt with especially that of the Medical Fraternity. This Court believes that in case care is taken of the problems that these doctors face, there would hardly be an example of any litigation by them. Otherwise also it is quite irksome to see a professional of such an important limb of the social machinery wasting his time and mental capacity in litigating before the courts, just to ensure for himself a smooth promotional passage, rather than devoting it for the public good. In this context it would be advisable that a mechanism is evolved by the respondents to see that the small affairs of the community do not get unnoticed and are taken proper care at the appropriate stage. This initiative will surely ensure a timely solution to the problems and believably will prove to be a very useful exercise for all times to come, as it would amount to nipping the evil in the bud.