Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH At JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, Puneet Gupta, JJ.
Shoket Mahmood Chowdhary - Appellant
Vs.
State of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
LPASW No. 52 of 2018(O&M)
Decided On : 22-02-2023
Antedated Appointment - Seniority Dispute - Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 - The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the order revoking the antedated appointment of the appellant. The court also found that the principle of res judicata did not apply to the subsequent writ petitions filed by the private respondent. The order dated 22.04.2015 was upheld, and the court rejected the appellant's claim of violation of natural justice. The court also dismissed the contempt proceedings against the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed five intra court appeals against the judgment dated 31.03.2018, which disposed of several writ petitions filed by the private respondent and the appellant. The disputes revolved around the appointment, seniority, and promotion of the appellant in the Government Medical College, Jammu.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was not entitled to antedated appointment and upheld the revocation of the same. The court also held that the principle of res judicata did not apply to the subsequent writ petitions filed by the private respondent. Additionally, the court rejected the appellant's claim of violation of natural justice and dismissed the contempt proceedings against the respondents.
Issues: The court determined the following issues: A. Whether the appointment could be antedated prior to the date of appointment. B. Whether the principle of res judicata applied to the subsequent writ petitions filed by the private respondent. C. Whether the order dated 22.04.2015 was required to be quashed for violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not entitled to antedated appointment and that the principle of res judicata did not apply to the subsequent writ petitions filed by the private respondent. The court also rejected the appellant's claim of violation of natural justice and dismissed the contempt proceedings against the respondents.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, upheld the order revoking the antedated appointment of the appellant, and rejected the appellant's claim of violation of natural justice. The court also closed the contempt proceedings against the respondents.
JUDGEMENT
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
1. The appellant has filed five intra court appeals against the judgment dated 31.03.2018 whereby the learned writ court disposed of three writ petitions i.e. SWP No. 1613/2013, SWP No. 1820/2013 and SWP No. D-1071/2014 filed by the private respondent and two writ petitions i.e. SWP No. 1216/2015 and SWP No. 1933/2016 filed by the appellant.
2. The Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 56/2018 arises out of the writ petition bearing SWP No. 1820/2013 filed by the private respondent for quashing the order No. 367-HME of 2013, dated 26.06.2013, whereby the appellant was deemed to be appointed as Lecturer in the discipline of Medicine, Government Medical College (GMC), Jammu notionally with effect from 04.07.2007 (the date of notification by the Public Service Commission) and further he was placed below Dr. Anil Dhar, Lecturer, Medicine, GMC, Jammu and above Dr. Faiz Ahmed Wani, Lecturer Medicine, GMC, Jammu.
3. The Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 52/2018 arises out of the writ petition bearing SWP No. 1613/2013 filed by the private respondent wherein he sought quashing of the order bearing No. 415-HME of 2013, dated 22.07.2013, whereby the appellant was placed as Assistant Professor in his own pay & grade and also prayed for directing the official respondents to consider the case of the private respondent for promotion as Assistant Professor (Medicine).
4. The Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No. 55/2018 arises out of the writ petition bearing SWP No. D-1071/2014 filed by the private respondent, wherein he sought quashing of the order bearing No. 22-HME of 2014, dated 23.04.2014, whereby the services of the appellant were segregated from his parent cadre i.e. Department of Medicine to Department of Gastroenterology and his lien was also transferred to Department of Gastroenterology.
5. The Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 53/2018 arises out of the writ petition bearing SWP No. 1216/2015 filed by the appellant and in this writ petition, the appellant had prayed for quashing of the Government order No. 139-HME of 2015, dated 22.04.2015 and directing the official respondents to allow the appellant to perform his duties as the Head of Unit of Gastroenterology in the Super Speciality Hospital, GMC, Jammu and not to disturb the seniority of the appellant.
6. The Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 54/2018 arises out of the writ petition bearing SWP No. 1933/2016 filed by the appellant and in that writ petition, the appellant had sought quashing of the advertisement notification No. 03-PSC(DR-P) of 2016, dated 19.02.2016 so far as it pertained to the advertisement of one post of Lecturer in the Department of Gastroenterology for the selection in the open merit in the GMC Jammu on the ground that no such post existed on the said date in the department as the said post was held by the appellant and further direction was also sought to be issued to the official respondents to convene the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee and consider the case of the appellant along with other eligible candidates for substantive promotion to the post of Assistant Professor with effect from the date, he was holding the post in his own pay & grade.
7. The outcome of LPASW No. 53/2018 would decide the fate of all the other connected intra-court appeals. Before we consider this appeal, we deem it proper to have the history of litigation commenced by the appellant in the year, 2007.
8. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (J&K PSC) issued a notification No. 7-PSC of 2007, dated 04.07.2007, whereby one post of Lecturer in the discipline of Medicine in Government Medical College, Jammu was advertised for selection. The appellant challenged the said notification on the ground that the said post was required to be advertised for the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category as per the reservation rules because in the year 2000, one post of ST category was utilized in the selection under open merit. The learned writ court vide its interim o
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant was not entitled to antedated appointment, and the principle of res judicata did not apply to the subsequent writ petitions file....
The court upheld the validity of appointments made under the reservation policy, emphasizing that challenges to such appointments after a significant delay are barred by principles of delay and lache....
The court upheld the validity of appointments made under the reservation policy, emphasizing that claims regarding seniority must be raised timely and that errors in selection processes should not pe....
Seniority fixed from date of first appointment per service rules, not retrospectively from interview; pay protection allowed from prior employment to prevent discrimination against delayed appointee.
Law cannot come to the rescue of the official respondents in having extended a benefit in favour of certain employees in disregard of rules and the law on the subject. The Court cannot be a signatory....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
