Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 76 (JK)

Mohd. Latief v. State

2018-02-08

ALOK ARADHE

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. In this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 24.03.2011 issued by respondent-2. The petitioner also seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondent-2 to accord seniority benefits to the petitioner from the date other selectees of the same selection process for the post of Patwari in District Rajouri in the year 1999 were given the benefits. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner belongs to Residents of Backward Area Category. The petitioner participated in the process of selection/recruitment in the year 1999 for the posts of Patwaries in District Rajouri, under the category of Residents of Backward Area. However, when the select list was issued on 18.06.1999, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the aforesaid list. Thereupon, the petitioner along with another person approached this Court by filing a writ petition, namely, SWP No.1338/1999, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.10.2000 with the direction that since the petitioner No.2 in the aforesaid writ petition, namely, the present petitioner, has obtained more than 41 marks, therefore, a direction was given to the respondents that petitioner No.2 be sent for training and thereafter he be put at par with other candidates, who were sent for training. The respondents were further directed to take requisite steps in this regard within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order dated 18.10.2000. 3. Admittedly, the aforesaid order was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents by submitting a representation for grant of seniority. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 24.03.2011 on the ground that the seniority has reference to actual date of appointment in a particular class, category and grade to which a candidate is appointed. It was further held that since the petitioner was appointed as Patwari on 24.06.2002, as such, the benefit of seniority cannot be given to him from the year 1999. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. It was further held that since the petitioner was appointed as Patwari on 24.06.2002, as such, the benefit of seniority cannot be given to him from the year 1999. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 24.03.2011 has been passed in contravention of order dated 18.10.2000 passed in SWP No.1338/1999, which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that in any case, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of seniority on the post in question. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dhar vs. J&K Public Service Commission & another, (2000) 8 SCC 182 . On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the impugned order dated 24.03.2011 is perfectly just and legal. Learned Deputy Advocate General while referring Rule 24 of the Jammu and Kashmir Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956 (herein-after to be referred as Rules of 1956), has submitted that admittedly the seniority of the petitioner is governed by Rule 24 and the seniority has to be determined from the date of his first substantive appointment to such service, class, category or grade as the case may be. Since the petitioner has been appointed as Patwari from 24.06.2002, therefore, the benefit of seniority cannot be granted him from the year 1999, in the light of the Rule 24 of the Jammu and Kashmir Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the petitioner and have perused the records. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that initially in the select list the name of the petitioner was not included, thereupon the petitioner filed a writ petition, namely, SWP No.1338/1999. In the aforesaid writ petition a Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.10.2000 has held as follows: “The petitioner No.2 has obtained more than 41 marks. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that initially in the select list the name of the petitioner was not included, thereupon the petitioner filed a writ petition, namely, SWP No.1338/1999. In the aforesaid writ petition a Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.10.2000 has held as follows: “The petitioner No.2 has obtained more than 41 marks. As such, so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned a direction is given to the effect that he be sent for training and thereafter he be put at par with other candidates who were sent for training and requisite steps in this case would be taken within a period of two weeks from the date copy of the order passed by this Court today is made available by the petitioner No.2 to the respondent-authorities. So far as petitioner No.1 is concerned marks obtained by him has not been disclosed. The respondents would disclose his marks to the petitioner No.1. In case he has obtained more than 41 marks, he be sent for the said training and be put at par with other candidates. Disposed off accordingly.” 6. Admittedly, the aforesaid order has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the finding was recorded by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner is entitled to be sent for training and thereafter he be put at par with other candidates, who were sent for training. The aforesaid finding is binding on the respondents. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances, Rule 24 of the Rules of 1956 has no application in the fact situation of the case, as the respondents are bound by the judgment dated 18.10.2000 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in SWP No.1338/1999, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dhar vs. J&K Public Service Commission & another (supra), the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of notional seniority. 13. In view of the preceding analysis, the impugned order dated 24.03.2011 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. The respondent No.2 is directed to accord the benefit of seniority notionally to the petitioner from the date the same has been extended to the similarly situated persons. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of two months from today. The respondent No.2 is directed to accord the benefit of seniority notionally to the petitioner from the date the same has been extended to the similarly situated persons. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of two months from today. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly along with connected MPs.