Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 366 (JK)

Darshan Kumar v. State of J&K

2016-07-16

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ramalingam Sudhakar, J. Admit. 2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. Pursuant to advertisement notification No. GEOK/SSA/9187-89 dated 17.07.2012, the petitioner participated in the selection process initiated for the post of R-e-T (Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher). The case of the petitioner is that official respondents No. 2 to 4 have prepared a panel dated 28.06.2014 with the intention to give illegal benefits to some person and therefore, aforesaid panel be quashed. 4. Petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to directing the official respondents No. 2 to 4 to act as per the earlier panel for appointment as R-e-T. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that private respondents No. 5 and 6 are ineligible and they are blue eyed persons of the official respondents No. 2 to 4 and their selection is bad. It is also the plea of the petitioner that he was in the earlier select list and he does not know as to why he has not been selected. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that qualification of the petitioner is higher than the private respondents. 6. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the official respondents primarily disputes the claim of higher eligibility and relied upon the decision of this Court in case titled Nidhi Sharma v. State of J&K and ors. reported in 2012 (2) JKJ [HC] 324. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that education qualification of the petitioner is not commensurate with the post to which the petitioner has applied. 7. In view of the above, it is for the authorities to consider as to whether objections raised by the petitioner has any substance or it is an empty claim. It has to be decided by the authority concerned after considering the nature of the objections raised. The Court does not find any reason to interfere with the selection process at this stage. 8. As a result, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the objections, if any, filed by the petitioner. It has to be decided by the authority concerned after considering the nature of the objections raised. The Court does not find any reason to interfere with the selection process at this stage. 8. As a result, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the objections, if any, filed by the petitioner. In case, objections have not been filed by the petitioner, he is at liberty to file a representation enclosing copy of the writ petition and a copy of this order to the respondents, which shall be considered by them preferably by four weeks' from the date a copy of this order when served upon them. If any adverse order is contemplated against private respondents, it is incumbent upon the authorities to put the private respondents on notice so as to avoid the allegations of violation of principle of natural justice. 9. Writ petition stands disposed of along with connected MPs as above.