SHABIR AHMAD DAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of the recruitment examination held by the J&K Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") in pursuance of requisition made by the State Government in the year 1995, the three appellants seek a direction from the Court, asking the State Government to appoint them on the posts remaining vacant due to non -joining of five candidates from the first select list. It may be noted at the outset that after the appointments in pursuance of the 1995 requisition, two recruitment processes were completed on the basis of the requisitions made by the State Government in the years 1999 -2000 and 2002. The recruitment process in pursuance of the requisition made by the State Government in the year 2004 -05 is under way and the recommendations of the Public Service Commission are awaited. Nevertheless, on behalf of the appellants it is insisted that their right to appointment against the vacancies under the 1995 requisition of the State Government cannot be defeated because they had come to this Court while the 'wait list, according to them, was still subsisting. In this regard reliance is also placed on an interim order passed at the stage of the writ petition to which I shall presently refer.

(2.) SEEKING the relief, as indicated above, appellants 1 and 2 along with one Mir Afroz came to this Court in SWP no. 1656/2000, Later two others, including appellant no.3, joined as writ petitioners, and the total number of writ petitioners became five. On 21 December, 2000, in the absence of any reply from the respondents, the Court passed an interim order in the writ petition directing the Commission to forward the names (of the writ petitioners) and the State to consider them for appointment, in accordance with the rules, against those posts within four weeks. The interim direction was expressly made subject to the outcome of the writ petition with the further stipulation that in case the writ petition did not succeed the petitioners would not be heard on the point of equity. For some reason the interim direction of the Court was not complied with and consequently a petition (Contempt petition no 291/2001 ) -was filed fur initialing proceedings of contempt against the concerned Government authorities for the alleged disobedience of the Courts interim direction. While the proceedings in the contempt petition were still pending, the main writ petition came to be taken up and on a consideration of the petitioners claim and the stand taken by respondent authorities; the Writ Court found and held that the petitioners not entitled to the relief prayed for. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed by judgment and order dated 10 May, 2005. As a result, the contempt proceeding also came to end, since the interim direction was expressly made subject to the final result of the main case.

(3.) THIS appeal is preferred (by 3 among the five writ petitioners) against the judgment and order passed by the Writ Court.