A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar upheld appointment of 29 Naib Tehsildars. Partly allowing LPA filed in Jammu Bench, the Division Bench observed that the judgment of Writ Court dated August 18, 2018 passed in SWP No. 360/2017 to the extent it quashes the Government Order No. 158-Rev of 2016 dated November 9, 2016 and directed official respondents to consider appointment of petitioners therein against the posts of Naib Tehsildars including grant of relaxation in upper age-limit besides granting them similar benefits as granted to petitioners in Inamul Haq Hajjam’s case, is upheld, whereas directions made by the writ Court to the extent of placing the writ petitioners over and above 29 selected candidates (appellants herein) in seniority list as well as the directions regarding quashment of their appointments and consequent stoppage of their salaries etc., are set aside.
As per case, J&K Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) issued three separate Advertisement Notices on April 16, 2002; May 4, 2005 and May 26, 2008 inviting applications for a total of 111 posts of Naib-Tehsildars. The selection process culminated in making recommendation by Board in favour of selected candidates, who were appointed to the posts of Naib-Tehsildars.
The process was completed in 2009-10. Division Bench after hearing battery of lawyers appearing for the both the sides observed that a bare perusal of above entry shows that it specifically mentions that in the case of Naib-Tehsildars, the minimum prescribed qualification shall be Graduate having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects. “The learned counsels, appearing for selected candidates/appellants, while interpreting the aforesaid SRO, it appears to us, are misreading the same. In our opinion, there is no ambiguity in the language of quoted rule. Our aforesaid opinion gets strengthened from fact that in the cases of these selected candidates/ appellants relaxation in their qualification has been granted by the Government, which clearly shows that they were not eligible as per the Rules in vogue, as they did not possess the requisite qualification i.e., Graduate having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects,” the court observed.
DB observed that there is, however, merit in the submission of the appellants that it was not open to the Writ Court to issue directions against the selected candidates as regards their seniority and status of their appointments without impleading them as parties to writ petition. It is a cardinal principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard. In the instant case, the learned Writ Court while passing the impugned judgment has observed these principles in breach, inasmuch as, none of the selected candidates was a party to the proceedings before the Court. DB further observed that apart from above, these selected candidates (the appellants herein), upon grant of relaxation in qualification by the Government, have been working as Naib-Tehsildars since 2010.
DB directed respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioners therein against posts of Naib Tehsildars including grant of relaxation in upper age limit and to grant to them similar benefits as have been granted to petitioners in Inamul Haq Hajjam’s case, is upheld, whereas directions made by the writ Court to the extent of placing the writ petitioners over and above 29 selected candidates (appellants herein) in the seniority list as well as the directions regarding quashment of their appointments and consequent stoppage of their salaries etc, are set aside.
