J L PANDITA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by means of this petition is seeking relief for quashing Government Order No. Home -404 (Police) of 1978 dated 21.9.1978, whereby the respondents 2 to 12 have been shown as senior to the petitioner in the seniority list of the Deputy Supdt. of Police as it stood on 1.4.1978 and for quashing Government Order No.Home -406 (Police) of 1978 dated 22.9.1978, whereby the respondents No.7,11 and 12 have been promoted as Superintendents of Police on the basis of the said seniority list. The petitioner seeks further relief of an appropriate writ, direction or order. The petitioner has stated that he was appointed under Government Order No. 362 -Home(A) of 1965 dated 27.10.1965 as Deputy Superintendent of Police on probation for a period of two years. The respondents issued seniority list of Deputy Superintendents of Police as on 1.12.1970 under No.Home -88/81 -PS(GAZ) dated 29.1.1971 (Annexure D to the petition), the petitioner has been assigned Serial No.44 of the seniority list as the date of his appointment has been shown as 27.10.1965. Respondent issued another seniority list under Government Order No.Home -404(Police) of 1978 dated 21.9.1978 and the petitioner has been shown at Serial No.26 and the date of appointment has also been shown as 27.10.1965.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 has filed the reply -affidavit, wherein the date of appointment of the petitioner has not been disputed. However, it is stated that the work of the petitioner during probation period was not found upto the mark and his probation period was extended by one year while the respondents 9,10 and 11 completed the probation period on due dates and this led the respondents ahead of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the committee was constituted for consideration of the representations of the aggrieved persons including the petitioner and the committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner having not been confirmed for valid reasons did not deserve right place in the seniority list.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case carefully.