STATE TIMES NEWS
SRINAGAR: A Division Bench of J&K High Court Srinagar Wing comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul directed Law Department to appoint petitioner namely Mudasir Bashir as Munsiff. This landmark judgment has been passed in a petition filed by Mudasir Bashir challenging Rule 51-A of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules’), and has sought a direction to the respondent- Public Service Commission to call petitioner for medical/fitness test and appoint him to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Munsiff, as notified in terms of notification dated May 30, 2018.As per brief facts of the petition, vide reference dated May 21, 2018 issued by the Department of Law Justice & Parliamentary Affairs (hereinafter for short, ‘the Department of Law’), 42 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Munsiffs were referred to J&K Public Service Commission for conducting selection process in accordance with Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 (hereinafter for short ‘ the Recruitment Rules’). The referred posts were notified by the Commission vide its notification dated May 30, 2018. The selection process, in which the petitioner also participated as one of the candidates, was finalised by the Commission and communicated to the Department of Law vide letter dated October 25, 2019. In selection list for Open Merit Category candidates issued by the Public Service Commission, the petitioner was given over all rank of 24 with aggregate score of 580 marks. The respondent No 5, with the same aggregate score was, however, ranked 23rd and, therefore, figured as a last candidate in Open Merit category. The petitioner was denied selection on the ground that the tie between petitioner and private respondent No.5 was broken by applying Rule 51-A of Rules and the petitioner, having scored lesser points in viva voce, was placed below respondent No.5.Division Bench after hearing both the sides and after perusal of record observed that of the view that grievance of the petitioner can be well taken care of and redressed in view of later development i.e. position emerging due to non-joining of one of selected candidates, namely, Nitika Mahajan. DB further observed that the position that one post in the Open Merit category has fallen vacant due to non-joining of one of the selected candidates, namely, Nitika Mahajan, in the pre-induction training, is not disputed either by B A Dar, lSr. AAG appearing for the Department of Law or by Azar-ul-Amin, counsel for the Public Service Commission. There was, however, some difference of opinion as to how, in such situation, the respondents ought to act.DB further said that in view of admitted position, one post of Munsiff in the Open Merit Category has fallen vacant as the selected candidate, namely, Nitika Mahajan, who was selected, despite notice, failed to join pre-induction training in State Judicial Academy and, consequently, her name was not recommended for appointment by High Court. In that view of the matter, the petitioner having merit equal to candidate selected in the Open Merit i.e., respondent No.5, cannot be denied selection and appointment.DB said that the plea of B A Dar, Sr. AAG, appearing for the Department of Law, that the name of the petitioner should be called from J&K Public Service Commission by the High Court, goes against the scheme of Rules and, therefore, not tenable. With these observations, Division Bench disposed of the petition with the direction that the Department of Law, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, shall write a formal communication to J&K Public Service Commission for forwarding the name of the petitioner, who is next in order of merit, with its recommendation to appoint him against the post that has fallen vacant due to non-appointment of Nitika Mahajn, a candidate selected in the Open Merit Category.DB further said that the High Court shall consider the matter and make appropriate recommendations to Government in the Department of Law as soon as possible for appointment of the petitioner. DB further observed that “We, however, leave it to the High Court to devise a way to impart the pre-induction training to the petitioner, if required.” DB further directed the Government to issue the formal order of appointment of the petitioner as Munsiff within four weeks from the date of receipt of recommendations from the High Court.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Withheld some a/cs within India, to continue advocating right of free expression: Twitter
New generation ICD with latest technology implanted at SSH Jammu
Arthritis drug no better than standard care for severe COVID-19, says study
People shouldn’t hesitate to get vaccinated, listen to scientists: Delhi’s 1st COVID patient
Gold tumbles Rs 522, silver crashes Rs 1,822
PNB Housing Finance, Yes Bank sign strategic co-lending pact for retail home loans
Rupee slumps 16 paise to 72.99 against US dollar in early trade
China fixes over 6 per cent as target for GDP in 2021
Rupee slumps 29 paise to 73.76 against US dollar in early trade
Download 10Cric Casino app, and enjoy Indias most popular casino games, directly on your mobile!
Gamble with real money online! Play Indias favourite casino games at 7Jackpots.com, Indias most trusted online casino site.
© 2020 State Times Daily Newspaper | Powered by Ideogram Technology Solutions [P] Ltd.