Back
M. A. CHOWDHARY, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Appellant
Versus
Ghulam Ahmad Wani – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chowdhary, J.
1. This intra Court appeal, under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred by the Appellants against the final Order/Judgment dated 18th of September, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 2276/2015 titled ‘Ghulam Ahmad Wani v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr.’, whereby the said Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner/Respondent herein stands allowed.
2. From the perusal of the pleadings on record, it emerges that a Writ Petition bearing SWP No. 3269 of 1992 came to be filed by the Respondent herein, challenging the selection and the appointment of private respondents therein as Prosecuting Officers. The said Writ Petition was decided by an Order dated 26th of November, 2009, whereby the Respondents therein were directed to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner/Respondent herein for his appointment against the post of Prosecuting Officer and pass appropriate orders in that behalf within a period of four weeks. In compliance of the aforesaid Judgment, the Respondent No. 2/Appellant No.2 herein appears to have issued an Order dated 15th of September, 2010, whereby the Writ Petitioner/Respondent herein was appointed as Prosecuting O
The respondent, having succeeded in his Petition for appointment, was entitled to all benefits admissible to him, and the inaction of the appellants infringed his fundamental rights.
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....
The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of FR 22-B, and the respondent authorities were directed to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioners by giving them the benefit of FR 22-B.
Point of Law : Only those appointments which were made up to the date of the learned Single Judge's decision would be continued and no further appointments on the basis of Rule 3(B) would be consider....
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....
A person cannot claim retrospective seniority in a service from a date prior to joining that service, reflecting the principle that seniority is tied to actual induction into the cadre.
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
