Withdrawal of appointment recommendation without merit-based reasoning violates principles of fairness and employee rights in public service.

ORDER

Per M.S.LATIF, M (J)

01. The instant O.A has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved of ab-initio withdrawal of recommendation in his favour as Assistant Professor, Botany. Following reliefs have been prayed for in this petition

“A. That the impugned decision in terms whereof the recommendation made in favour of the applicant has been withdrawn ab initio as communicated in terms of the communication bearing no. PSC/DR/AP/Botany/2019 dated 06-06-2023 and the impugned communications both dated 06-06-2023, be set aside and quashed.

B. That the show cause notice bearing no. HED-GAZ/176/2023-04 dated 03-08-2023 be set aside and quashed.

C. That the respondents be restrained from proceeding ahead against the applicant in respect of the subject matter of the impugned show cause notice bearing no. HEDGAZ/176/2023-04 dated 03-08-2023”.

02. Alongside the main relief the petitioner has sought for interim relief which reads as under:

“Pending adjudication of the O.A., the impugned decision of withdrawing the recommendation made in favour of the applicant as communicated in terms of Communication bearing no. PSC/DR/AP/Botany/2019 dated 06- 06-2023 be stayed and thereto the respondents be restrained from proceeding ahead in the matter in terms of the show cause notice bearing no. HED-GAZ/176/2023-04 dated 03-08-2023.”

03. Before proceeding ahead to decide the matter finally, we feel it necessary to have a cursory look at various orders passed by this court in this petition from time to time. On 20-02-2024, the matter came up for consideration and the respondent no.4 – Ms. Sumira Jan, in terms of M.A 815/2023, sought modification/vacation of interim direction passed in this matter on 18-08-2023, granting status quo to the petitioner. However, the matter could not be considered finally in absence of reply/counter by the respondents, more particularly, by respondent No.3, PSC. Accordingly, Mr. Shah Aamir, representing the respondent No.3, was granted three weeks’ last and final opportunity to respond by filing his detailed counter, failing which the Secretary, Public Service Commission, was ordered to appear in person before the court to explain non-compliance of the order. On 19.03.2024, Ms. Insha Shakeel, appeared vice Mr. Shah Amir, representing the respondent No.3, submitted that she has filed the response and copy of the same was provided to the respondent No.4.

04. The matter came up for consideration on 06.05.2024 and the counsel for the parties informed the court about the order dated 24-04- 2024, passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in WPC No. 822/2024 titled as Sumira Jan (respondent No.4 herein) versus Waseem Raja & others. In paragraph (8) of the order, Hon’ble High Court observed that :

“We do not wish to express our opinion on merits of the issues raised by Mr. R.A. Jan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner before us inasmuch as we intend to relegate the matter to the learned CAT to consider reviewing and modifying the order of status quo passed by the CAT on 18.08.2023 as sought by the petitioner in the light of the application so submitted by the petitioner before the CAT should be considered at the earliest for which we request the learned CAT to do so within one week from the date of copy of this order is intimated to the learned CAT and also observing that the status quo order shall not be continued beyond one week of the furnishing the order of this Court and if the status quo order is required to be continued beyond one week, the same shall be done only by passing a speaking order in that regard so that the petitioner would know legal basis for continuation of such a status quo-order."

05. Accordingly, learned counsel for the parties were directed to advance their argum