LAWS(J&K)-2010-7-56

BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE

Decided On July 08, 2010
BHUPINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of the advertisement notice no. Estt/Pros-9/91/37224-94 dated 10.09.1991, petitioner applied for the post of Prosecuting Officer. He passed initial physical and out-door tests and was consequently called for the written examination. After having qualified the written examination the petitioner was called for the viva-voce test. However, he did not find his name in the select list and filed the present writ petition.

(2.) It may be noted that the selection of some of the selected candidates was challenged in the Srinagar Wing of the Court in SWP no. 156/1993, which writ petition came to be allowed on 16.07.1998 and directions were issued to appoint two of the three writ petitioners, though prospectively. The petitioner, after coming to know about this judgment, sought permission of the Court to amend his writ petition, and after permission, he has filed an amended writ petition, wherein he has stated that in a subsequent selection for the said post, he stood appointed as Prosecuting Officer in the year 1995, and has limited his prayer to the extent that petitioner be deemed to have been appointed from 4.1.1993 and he should be assigned his place in the select list in view of his merit position in the said selection.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that though he had filed the present writ petition, challenging the selection in question, yet the respondents, took the stand before the Court in SWP no. 156/1993 that no other person has challenged the selection and, it was on the basis of this statement of the respondents, that two of the writ petitioners were directed to be appointed. The respondents, thereafter appointed one more candidate, namely, Nazir Ahmed Naikoo, whose name did not figure at all in the select list, as such, the right of the petitioner for his appointment was intentionally taken away. His further contention is that his merit is higher than those of the writ petitioners who have been appointed in terms of the directions of this Court passed in SWP no. 156/1993.