SHAH PASANDEEDA Vs. BASHIR AHMED MIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned single Judge, disposed of service writ petition No. 3130 of 1994, Bashir Ahmad Mir Vs. State and others, vide JUDGMENT dated august 08, 1997 in terms holding Bashir Ahmad Mir appointed as Draftsman in Rural Development Department of the State and Shah Pasandeeda as Draftsman in Public Works Department of the state from their original date of appointment with consequential benefits.

(2.) PURSUANT to Advertisement Notice 7 of 1993 dated 22.12.1993, both appellant (Shah Pasandeeda) and Respondent No. 1 (Bashir Ahmad Mir) applied for selection to the post of Draftsman (Civil). In all 21 posts (20 in PWD and 1 in RDD) in terms of advertisement notice were required to be filled on direct recruitment. Both were selected and figured in the selection list for the posts of Draftsman (Civil) (Annexure P2). The recruitment and selection was made by the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board. The Board recommended the case of appellant for appointment as Draftsman in Rural Development Department against the one post available at Anantnag and respondent Bashir Ahmad Mir was recommended for appointment in Public Works Department against one of the available posts. The Government accepted the selection and recommendations issued orders of appointment appointing Shah Pasandeeda as Draftsman in Rural Development Department and Respondent No. 1 Bashir Ahmad Mir as Draftsman (Civil) in Public Works Department. Bashir Ahmad Mir aggrieved of his posting in Public Works Department and not in Rural Development Department, filed writ petition No. 3130/94 in the High Court at Srinagar. A learned Single Bench of this Court on 26.10.1995 disposed of the petition directing the government to allot Bashir Ahmad Mir to Public Works Department, interalia on the ground that Shah Pasandeeda Respondent No. 7 to the writ petition had no objection in case she is allotted to and appointed in Public Works Department as Draftsman. As follow up of this JUDGMENT and orders in the contempt petition, the allocation of Shah Pasandeeda was changed to Public Works Department and that of Bashir Ahmad Mir to Rural Development Department vide Government Order dated 3 -6 -1996 (Annexure P6).

(3.) APPELLANT Shah Pasandeeda challenged the JUDGMENT of the learned Single Bench in LPA No. 95/96. Speaking for the Division Bench his Lordship M. Rama Krishna, the Chief Justice observed: "The written statement of objections reveals that the same has not been signed by respondent No. 7, though it is said to have been signed by Mr. K.A. Qureshi learned counsel for respondent No. 7. It is pertinent to note that as the appellant (the respondent in the writ court) had not been served with the notice, she has no occasion to engage the services of an advocate at all. It is a misnomer for the writ court to proceed on the premise that there were two Advocates appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7. It is strange that the learned Single Judge, without applying his mind to the actual facts as disclosed by the records, proceeded to hold that respondent No. 7 had no objection to do so. At the outset the poor lady was kept in darkness as she had not been served with the notice. Since she had been enjoying the post of Draftsman from 1987, we wonder how she could come forward to say that she had no objection to send the writ petition to the post held by her. Sufficient to say, at this stage, that it is a fit case to allow the appeal on the above premise".