G N GOWHAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein, a District and Sessions Judge in State judiciary at the relevant time impugns communication No. 6659/GS dated 14.10.1991 purporting to have been sent to him by Registrar of respondent High Court informing that vide Court order No. 672 of the same date he alongwith another officer, namely, Sh. P. L. Dasi (expired by now), has not been found fit for grant of selection grade and accordingly seeks quashment thereof besides a direction for grant of selection grade.

(2.) BEFORE coming to details, it would be appropriate to notice that the writ petition appears to have been admitted way back on 30.10.1991 with an interim stay on grant of aforesaid, grade to 13th respondent, which on challenge through LPA no. 190/1991 was set aside on 17.03.1992, however, with a clarification that acceptance of appeal would not, in any manner, effect pendency and continuation of the main writ petition. Cumulative reading of the Division Bench order thus appears to convey that while order of interim stay was overset, admission of the writ petition was left intact subsequent whereto respondents appear to have been directed to file counter affidavit vide interim order dated 22.04.1998 with last opportunity for the same given on 07.08.1998 whereafter vide interim order dated 01.07.1999 the matter has been directed to be listed for hearing. On 26.07.2006 the matter was heard in part as official records pertaining to petitioners APRs for 1988 -1989, 1989 -1990 and 1990 -1991 were not on file. Hearing was completed when the same was filed.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, petitioners case is that his APRs for aforesaid years were not properly recorded which resulted in his assessment as "average", however, never conveyed to him due to which he could not seek review of APRs so recorded only to give undue benefit to some officers particularly respondent no. 3 over petitioner and the other officer, above named, who were both senior to him. During course of submissions, the petitioner who himself argued the matter has besides re -iterating the contents of writ petition given his detailed service profile and claiming to be an award winner and a man of letters also contended that he has been wrongfully victimized by deliberate award of bad APRs.