AJAY SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN an Act of Parliament made against natural equity as to make a man judge in his own case is void in itself. Such was the strong expression of opinion expressed in a case reported as Day Vs. Savadge (1614) Hob. 85 at page 87, quoted in A Second Miscellany at Law by the Honble Sir Robert Magarry, First Indian Reprint, at page 19. This is the precise argument raised in this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that in this case, the private respondent No. 5 came to be selected because of his close relationship with respondent No. 4 who was the Convenor of Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Service Selection Recruitment Board. It is submitted that respondent No. 5 is nephew of respondent No. 4. It is on account of this relationship the respondent No. 5 is said to have been given the benefit and said to have stolen a march over the petitioner. Petitioners further case is that the percentage of marks obtained by the petitioner so far as academic qualification is concerned is 64.5 percent. It is submitted that the petitioner was high up in the merit list which was prepared by the respondent authorities and it was on this basis he was interviewed. It is however, submitted that while making selection, the respondent No. 5 was selected on the basis of percentage obtained by him in the final year of his examination i.e. 64.7. It is thus submitted that so far as aggregate percentage is concerned, the respondent No. 5 is possessing low percentage as compared to the petitioner. It is in this manner, the respondent No. 5 is said to have stolen a march over the petitioner.

(3.) PETITION stands admitted.