Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 301 (JK)

Nawaz Ahmed v. State of J&K

2018-05-15

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders impugned dated 09.01.2014 and 04.06.2015, whereby the case of the petitioner for absorption as a Constable has been rejected. The orders of consideration were passed pursuant to the directions issued in an earlier round of litigation vide judgment and order dated 10.05.2013, passed in SWP No. 416/2012. 2. According to the orders of rejection, the basis for rejecting the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner based his claim on the basis of operational performance in the year 2009 and that since the concerned officers had never recommended the case of the petitioner at the relevant point of time, therefore, was indicative of the fact that his overall performance must not have been up to the mark. 3. Insofar as, the letter of recommendations in favour of the petitioner dated 24.07.2014 by the Superintendent of Police, District Ramban and dated 13.11.2013 by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Banihal are concerned, it is stated that the SP Ramban's recommendation in the year 2014 was issued after the rejection order had already been passed by the Police Headquarters. 4. On a perusal of the orders impugned, whereby the case of the petitioner stands rejected, it appears that the rejection is based upon nothing but presumptions, surmises and conjectures. The concerned authorities ought to have given weightage to the recommendatory letters in favour of the petitioner by the Major 12 RR (Grenadiers), SDPO, Banihal, as also the SP, District Ramban. All these recommendations could not have been brushed aside casually. The fact that the case of the petitioner was not recommended in the year 2009 by the concerned officers does not necessarily mean that he did not perform well in the operations at the relevant point of time. 5. In any case, the order of rejection does not discredit the fact that the petitioner had participated in the operations and the concerned Army Officer and the other Police Officers did make recommendations in favour of the petitioner, considering his outstanding performance in the said operations. 6. 5. In any case, the order of rejection does not discredit the fact that the petitioner had participated in the operations and the concerned Army Officer and the other Police Officers did make recommendations in favour of the petitioner, considering his outstanding performance in the said operations. 6. As to what were the reasons for the concerned officer at the relevant point of time in not making a recommendation in favour of the petitioner is difficult to comprehend, but the fact remains that there are recommendatory letters in favour of the petitioner, recognizing his outstanding performance. 7. The official respondents on their part could have gone slightly deeper into the issue to test the veracity of the recommendatory letters issued in favour of the petitioner, rather than brushing aside the same. 8. Record has been produced in the open Court by the official respondents. From the record, it appears that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Batote Range's communication dated 01.08.2014 is the basis for rejection by the Director General of Police. The said communication of the DIG, Batote Range also proceeds on the premise that the concerned officers at the helm of affairs would have certainly recommended the name of the petitioner had his performance been outstanding. 9. In my opinion, these are just presumptions. To justify the rejection of the case of the petitioner, the letters of recommendation both by the Army authorities as also the Police authorities ought to have been tested independently, which certainly has not happened in the present case. Thus, the orders of rejection on that ground cannot be upheld. 10. This petition is, accordingly, allowed. Orders impugned dated 09.01.2014 and 04.06.2015 are hereby quashed. The official respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner in light of the recommendatory letters issued in favour of the petitioner, both by the Army as also the Police agencies. The case of the petitioner be reconsidered in a greater depth and appropriate orders be passed within a period of three months' from the date a copy of this order is made available to the respondents. 11. Disposed of accordingly along with connected MP.