STATE OF J&K Vs. ABDUL HAMID KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Jammu and Kashmir and its functionaries have filed an application with a prayer for condoning the delay of two years and 166 days in filing the accompanying Letters Patent Appeal. It is appropriate to mention that learned writ Court delivered a judgement dated 18.03.2011 in SWP No. 4178/1997 (Abdul Hamid Khan & others v. State of J&K and others). After the judgement, the Service Selection Board (for brevity 'Board ') issued an order dated 18.06.2011, expressing its inability to make the recommendations for appointment in favour of the writ petitioners on the ground that the writ Court did not quash the selection of any candidate which might have resulted in occurrence of vacancy(ies) under Open Merit category, so as to recommend the names of the writ petitioners. It is further stated by the Board that no post under the Open Merit category had remained unfilled. Moreover, after the year 1997, the Board has made selections in various districts including Anantnag District and has furnished the selection list to the indenting department. In any case, the Board has become functus officio and did not have the jurisdiction to make the recommendations over and above the referred posts in any category.

(2.) WHAT is seen from the pleadings is that the matter remained pending between June, 2011 to October, 2011, and was examined at various levels in the department. Finally the department of Youth Services and Sports decided that it was indenting department and no selection in favour of writ petitioners - respondents herein was received from the Board, therefore, the question of appointing the writ petitioners was outside their jurisdiction. It led to the filing of contempt petition bearing Cont. No. 535/2011, and direction was issued to the appellants to comply with the judgement and order dated 18.03.2011.

(3.) IN response to notice of motion, objections have been filed by the writ petitioners -respondents opposing the application seeking condonation of huge delay. On their behalf, Mr. G. A. Lone, learned appearing counsel argued that there is no cause muchless sufficient cause shown by the appellants justifying the delay. According to the learned counsel, as a matter of fact the judgement was well within the knowledge of the appellants and the Law Department has rightly declined the possibility of filing of any Letters Patent Appeal. It is contended that on 27.05.2013, it has been insisted that once the opinion has been expressed by the Law Department, there was no possibility of re -examination of the matter and granting permission to file the Letters Patent Appeal on 20.09.2013.