MOHAMMAD AQIB LANKER Vs. STATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) has been preferred against an interim order dated 08th of November, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in MP No. 02/2017 (SWP No. 1956/2016), titled Mohammad Aqib Lanker versus State and others.

(2.) The appellant has pleaded in the appeal that, after responding to the advertisement notification dated 10-05-2013, published by the Service Selection Board (SSB), for filling up the post of Calligrapher in Tourism & Culture Department, J & K, he successfully qualified the test and figured at S.No.1 in the open merit category in the selection list. However, the controversy, that arose and coerced him to file the writ petition (SWP 1956/2016), revolves under the plea that in the Remarks Column of the selection list, the selection of the appellant has been withheld on the following ground :

(3.) The appellant has proceeded to state that to his utter dismay, the candidate, who figured at S.No.2 in the selection list and has an equivalent qualification in Calligraphy, namely Ms. Rashida Iffat, no such observation appears to have been made in the selection list. He has also stated that although the certificate of Calligraphy, issued in her favour, does not disclose anywhere specifically that she is a diploma holder, yet she has been appointed and is working in the department as a Calligrapher. The appellant has further added that he has successfully completed the 02 years Calligraphy course from the J & K State Council for Vocational Training under the aegis of the Directorate of Technical Education J & K. The appellant has further pleaded that the respondents have failed to get the matter settled till date without any justification or reason and it appears that the appointment of the appellant has been withheld for extraneous considerations. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 08-11-2017 has been passed without resolving the controversy in the right perspective. In an earlier order dated 14-12-2016, the learned writ Court, while issuing notice in the matter, directed the respondents that the selection of the petitioner shall not be disturbed except for his appointment subject to the satisfaction of the conditions contained therein. This order has been rendered insignificant and has become redundant by coming into being of the order, impugned herein, and if the same is acted upon, it will mean appointing a candidate who does not fulfill the eligibility criterion and thereby a great prejudice will be caused to the appellant, who is eligible and fulfills the criterion. At the end, the appellant has sought the setting aside of the impugned order dated 08-11-2017.