YASHPAUL GUPTA Vs. S S ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Dr. Yashpaul Gupta, while serving as Physician Specialist at the S.M.G.S., Hospital Jammu was allotted a staff quarter attached to the Hospital on 10th of May 1973. On 11 -1 -1974, interviews were held for selection of candidates for appointment to the Medical College, Jammu. The petitioner was also one of the candidates who had appeared for the interview but he was not selected. Consequent upon his non -selection, the petitioner alongwith seven other doctors who had also not been selected for appointment to the Medical College, Jammu were transferred from the said hospital, which is attached to the Medical College, Jammu, vide order of the Government dated 26 -1 -74. Out of the aforesaid eight doctors, only three were occupying the staff quarters attached to the S.M.G.S. Hospital. Pursuant to their transfers, the doctors occupying the staff quarters were asked by the Superintendent SMGS Hospital vide order dated 19 -2 -74. to vacate those quarters, whereas two of the doctors vacated the quarters, the Petitioner did not do so and proceedings were initiated against him for his eviction from the said quarter under Jammu and Kashmir Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act 1959 (hereinafter called the Act). Notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be evicted from the said quarters, which was in his un -authorised occupation, and ultimately his eviction was order after hearing the parties, by the Estate Officer under the said Act. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority having failed on 1 -11 -1975, the petitioner has come to this court for redress of his grievance.

(2.) IN the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, it is stated that Dr. S S. Anand, Secretary, Medical Education (Respondent No. 1) and Mr. J.P. Kesar, Secretary, Health Department (Respondent No. 2) were inimical towards him, and although the petitioner who was the senior most physician specialist possessing the requisite qualifications serving in the S.M.G.S. Hospital, and had been selected by the selection Committee for appointment as a professor, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 out of shere malice acted in such a way that, despite his selection, he was not appointed to the Medical College. Instead it is alleged that respondent No. I who personally bore malice against the petitioner manuplated the appointment of Dr. R. N. Bhat as a professor though Dr. Bhat had been rejected by the Selection Committee. The petitioner then goes on to state in his petition that he filed a representation before the Chief Minister against his non -appointment after due selection but respondent Nos. 1 and 2 managed to hide the representation from the Chief Minister and also managed to withhold the files concerning the selection of the petitioner for consideration by the Chief Minister. The petitioner goes on to say that inspite of obstacles put in this way by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and he was able to secure and interview with the Chief Minister on 3rd May, 1975, and the petitioner then submits that on his narrating the facts to the Chief Minister, he (Chief Minister) assured him that due justice would be done to him. According to the petitioner this interview with the Chief Minister coupled with his representation made to the Chief Minister had further annoyed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and they initiated other proceedings against the petitioner. While explaining what those proceedings were, he states that the "proceedings took the form of issuing notices to the petitioner to vacate the premises occupied by him, as physician specialist". It is then maintained in the petition that with malafide intention, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 managed to have the order of his eviction regard from the Estate Officer by exarting their personal influence on him. After giving this back ground, the petitioner goes on state that the procedure adopted for his eviction was malafide and that the notice issued for him under Section 4 of the Act was not in accordance with law end that since respondent No: 4, the Estate Officer and District Judge, respondent No: 3 had ordered the eviction of the petitioner under the influence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and without giving him any opportunity to properly show cause against his proposed eviction, his eviction was bad in the eye of law and the order deserved to be struck down.

(3.) IN reply to the Writ Petition, besides taking preliminary objection to the maintainability of Writ Petition, it has been urged that the petitioner had not been selected by the Selection Committee and his assertion to the contrary is false. It is maintained that the petitioner was occupying quarter while serving in the SMGS Hospital and since, he had been transferred from there he had no right to stay in the quarter. It is further stated that the failure of the petitioner to vacate the quarter after he was directed to do so made him an unauthorised occupant who was liable to be evicted under the provision of the Act. It is asserted that all his allegations of malice against the respondent were vague and without substance and did not merit any consideration. The Estate Officer, respondent No. 4 and the appellate authority under the Act respondent No. 3, have denied that they acted under any influence of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and have state that they decided the case after giving proper hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the written statement and also submitted an application praying for the summoning of certain record, as according to the petitioner he wanted to establish from that record that the action culminating in his eviction from the quarter was malafide. By my order dated August 11, 1976, I directed the respondents to produce the record detailed in my order and consequent there to the learned Addl. Advocate General has produced the record before me.