Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 260 (JK)

Zahir Ahmad v. Union Territory of J&K

2021-05-31

PANKAJ MITHAL, VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard Shri M.A. Qayoom and Shri T.M. Shamsi, ASGI, for the parties. 2. The petitioner/appellant has preferred this appeal against an interlocutory order dated 19.11.2020 passed by the Writ Court entertaining the writ of the petitioner/appellant but not passing any stay order except for subjecting the selection of respondent no. 5 on the post of Rehbar-e-Khel to the outcome of the writ petition. 3. The submission of Shri Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant is that the petitioner/appellant had made out a good case for grant of interim protection inasmuch as the respondent no. 5 has fraudulently obtained appointment and is drawing salary from the public exchequer; he is not eligible and qualified for the post and the claim of the petitioner/appellant has been completely ignored. Thus, if not the appointment of respondent no. 5 could have been stayed, at least his salary should have been stopped or a post may have been reserved for the petitioner/appellant. 4. The petitioner/appellant in the writ petition has prayed for quashing of the selection and appointment of respondent no. 5 on the post of Rehbar-e-Khel and has further prayed for issuance of Mandamus commanding the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner on the said post. 5. None of the two reliefs claimed by the petitioner/appellant in the writ petition could have been granted to him at the interim stage as that would have amounted to granting the final relief. The stay of the selection and appointment of respondent no. 5 would also not have served any benefit to the petitioner/appellant. Moreover, the selection and appointment of respondent no. 5 was of the year 2017 and there was no justification for its stay in 2020 after the respondent no. 5 had worked for three years. Keeping the post reserved for the petitioner/appellant would have also not served any purpose inasmuch as if on adjudication of the writ petition the petitioner/appellant is held entitled for appointment he would be given appointment may be in place of respondent no. 5. 6. The Writ Court has neither expressly refused stay order to the petitioner/appellant nor has expressly permitted the respondent no. 5 to function on the post of Rehbar-e-Khel. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find that any error or illegality has been committed by the Writ Court in passing the order impugned. 8. 5. 6. The Writ Court has neither expressly refused stay order to the petitioner/appellant nor has expressly permitted the respondent no. 5 to function on the post of Rehbar-e-Khel. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find that any error or illegality has been committed by the Writ Court in passing the order impugned. 8. The petitioner/appellant may approach the Writ Court for early decision of the writ petition. Shri Shamsi undertakes to file response therein shortly. 9. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.