SYED AIJAZ FARIDE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner having qualified his post graduation in the discipline of Geography succeeded in getting admission in Ph.D. Programme in the faculty of Natural Sciences, Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi. The petitioners studies commenced from 11/05/1993 on "Impact of Tourism on Ecology, Economy and Society of Kashmir". During this process, the petitioner availed of a chance to apply to the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board in response to an advertisement notice. He appeared in the interview and his performance has begotten his selection and a recommendation at the hands of the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection for his appointment as a teacher vide No. SSB/SS/96/SSB/21/96 dated 01/08/1996. The recommendation was acted upon and the respondent No.2 issued an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner vide order No.224 of 1996 dated 06/08/1996 and in compliance thereto the petitioner joined his duties.

(2.) THE petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No.4 on 25/02/1997 requesting for grant of leave for a period of three months of whatever kind, from 1st. of March, 1997 and availed of the leave. The leave was extended by the petitioner from time to time till submission of the thesis and reported back to the respondent No.4 to resume his duties but he was not allowed to join on one or the other pretext, ultimately permission was refused on the ground of termination of services, leaving no option for him but to challenge the order of termination bearing No. CEO/B/Absence -13580 -610 dated 30/08/97 through the medium of this writ petition. Alongside, an application for interim relief was also filed and while considering the writ petition for admission and the CMP for grant of interim relief on 20/01/1998. Mr. M.I. Qadiri learned counsel for the respondents made a suggestion to the court that instead of granting interim relief, the writ petition be heard and disposed of finally and sought time to file objections. In view of the stand taken no interim relief was allowed and three weeks time was granted to file objections. On 09/02/1998 Mr. Qadiri sought further time to file objections and the petition came up for consideration on 17/02/1998, but the matter could not be considered because of non availability of Mr. Qadiri, therefore, the petition could not be heard finally in terms of order dated 09/02/ 1998 but was considered for admission only and such consideration resulted in admission of the writ petition after hearing LC for the parties and a schedule for final disposal was spelt out. In the CPM the respondents conceded to allow the petitioner to resume his duties subject to the outcome of the writ petition, a statement to this effect was made by the learned counsel for the respondents which forms part of the file of the court and on the basis of such statement operation of the impugned order was stayed in so far as it pertains to the petitioner and the petitioner was allowed to resume duties. Counter was not filed, right to file counter was closed. Since the respondents failed to file the counter, Mr. Qadiri requested the court to appreciate the plight of the petitioner in the light of the official record, accordingly he was allowed to produce the record which I am going to deal with a bit later.

(3.) THE respondents have failed to rebut the averments made in the writ petition supported by an affidavit and presumption of correctness can safely be drawn in favour of factual statements, but since the record is before me, I would like to test the veracity of these averments on the strength of the record available.