Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 75 (JK)

Ajaz Maqbool Bhat v. State of J&K

2015-03-06

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.:- 1. Despite opportunity, reply affidavit has not been filed. The petitioner was selected for being appointed on the post of Extension Educator in the State Health Department. Recommendation was made by the Service Selection Board to the Health and Medical Education Department J & K Srinagar vide communication dated 03rd June, 2014. The Administrative Officer of Family Welfare Department MCH and Immunization J & K issued a public notice asking the selected candidates to report to the Directorate of Family Welfare Department MCH and Immunization J & K within ten days from the date of publication of the notice alongwith the original documents with one set of spare photostat copy for verification. 2. In the selection list of the candidates for Division Cadre Kashmir, the name of the petitioner figure at serial No. 1 in the open merit category. In the remarks column, his recommendation was withheld and was subject to clearance with regard to status of the University wherefrom the degree was obtained. 3. The petitioner approached all the authorities with the relevant documents to show that the degree awarded to him by the University viz. Annamalai University is valid. One of the document placed on the writ record would show that the Registrar of the said University has certified that the University is recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for the purpose of grants and the said University is established by the Act of the Government. Communication send by Under Secretary Resident Commission to Chairperson J & K Service Selection Board on 03rd June, 2014 clarifies the issue about the degree certificate of the petitioner and request has been made for recommending the candidature of the petitioner for being appointed on the post of Extension Educator. 4. Copy of the Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012, dated 30th May, 2012 is also placed on the writ record to indicate that the Government has also accorded recognition to the degrees obtained through distance mode. The degree awarded by such Universities have been recognized for the purpose of employment. 5. The petitioner in the aforesaid fact situation has been awarded degree by the recognized University which is established by Act of Government. 6. The degree awarded by such Universities have been recognized for the purpose of employment. 5. The petitioner in the aforesaid fact situation has been awarded degree by the recognized University which is established by Act of Government. 6. In view of the Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012, dated 30th May, 2012, the respondent-Board ought not to have raised objections and withheld the recommendation of the petitioner who figure at serial No. 1 of the merit list. 7. The respondent-Board has illegally and unauthorizedly withheld the recommendation of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has been subjected to incalculable sufferings. His right of being appointed has been illegally and arbitrarily taken away infringing the guarantee contained in Article 16 of Constitution of India. 9. The Respondent-Board has acted arbitrarily in the case of the petitioner. 10. For the above stated reasons, this writ petition alongwith connected IA(s) is disposed of in the following manner: Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to recommend the case of the petitioner to respondents 1 and 2 for being appointed on the post of Extension Educator. The recommendation shall be made within one week from the date copy of this order is served. After receipt of the recommendation by respondents 1 and 2, they shall issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 11. Since the petitioner and other selected candidates participated in one selection process and petitioner's recommendation for being appointed on the post of Extension Educator has been illegally withheld, the petitioner would be entitled to all the service benefits to which other candidates who participated in the same selection process and stand appointed are getting and would get in future. 12. The petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to receive monitory benefits, having not worked on the post. Disposed of as above.