STATE Vs. ALI MOHD WANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent writ petitioner questioned the legality of two Government Orders. These were issued on 26th Feb '97 and 30th Dec '97. These have been placed on the record of writ petition as Annexures-C and E. Both the orders stand quashed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The State as also respondent No. 3 in the writ petition i. e. Mohd. Hussain, have preferred two appeals under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) Respondent writ petitioner submitted that he is an employee of Vigilance Organisation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He joined this department as a Steno Typist. Later on, he was promoted as Junior Stenographer. Two other persons namely Nazir Ahmad Bhat and A. K. Bakaya were also promoted as Junior Stenographers. Respondent writ petitioner submitted that a tentative seniority list of ministerial staff was circulated on 27th Aug '91. In this list his name figured at Serial No. 5. According to the respondent writ petitioner this tentative seniority list remained as it is and no final seniority list was issued. This is one aspect of the matter.

(3.) The other aspect of the matter is that respondent No. 3 to the writ petition i.e. Mohd Hussain, Junior Stenographer was borne on the cadre strength of Government Medical College, Srinagar. He was later on transferred to the office of Custodian Evacuee Property. Thereafter, he was adjusted in the office of Vigilance Commissioner against an available post. This happened on 17th Oct '86. His lien in the parent department was to cease with effect from that date. The further fact is that as Mohd. Hussain was deemed to have been absorbed in the department w.e.f. Oct '86 as Junior Stenographer, he came to be placed over and above the respondent writ petitioner. A representation was preferred by the respondent writ petitioner. This came to be rejected on 30th Dec '97. The order by which respondent No. 3 to the writ petition Mohd. Hussain came to be adjusted is Annexure C with the writ petition. The prayer of respondent writ petitioner that he should be placed over and above Mohd. Hussain was declined vide Annexure E, which order, as indicated above was passed on 30th Dec '97. Both these orders were under challenge. These stand quashed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The basis for quashing these orders was that there was nothing on the record to indicate that absorption of Mohd. Hussain in Vigilance Organisation was in the public interest. It was urged that unless and until the absorption of a person is in public interest, he cannot claim seniority w.e.f. the date he came to be adjusted on an equivalent post in another department. It was this reasoning which prevailed with the learned single Judge. What has been observed and quoted by the learned single Judge is :