G M DAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by Mr. Justice Ali as his Lordship then was dated 4 -3 -1966 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant for the issue of writ of certiorari quashing the order of the State of Jammu and Kashmir No. TR 85 of 1965 dated 6 -12 -1965 whereby the respondent No. 2 had been -appointed as the Administrative Officer in the grade of 400 -700 The allegations of the appellant in the Writ petition were that he had entered the service of the Transport Department on 16 -9 -1953 as Head Clerk held various gazetted posts in the Department both on the operational and administrative units of the Department and his record of service in the Department was creditable and there was no adverse remark against him that the respondent No. 2 who was far junior to the petitioner had been appointed temporarily as Administrative officer in the Government undertaking on the post which was temporarily created by the Government for one year in the first instance. The appointment was challenged on the ground that the petitioner was senior to the respondent No. 2, the record of the service of the petitioner was splendid and that the post was not a selection post, it had to be filled up by promotion and thus the appointment of the respondent No. 2 violated Rule 24 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Ruleâ„¢ in the judgment for brevity) and further on the ground that the case of the petitioner had not been considered at all.

(2.) . To this writ petition, objections were filed by the respondent No. 2 who contreverted the allegations of the petitioner and submitted that the respondent No. 2 had undertaken three months training at Bombay, Poona in Maharashtra State Government undertaking, while promoting respondent No. 2, the comparative merits and claims of the employees concerned were considered by the concerned authority as will be obvious from the perusal of certain letters quoted in Paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit, that the respondent No. 2 had been after due consideration found better qualified for the post to which he was promoted, that the post of Administrative Officer could not be filled up on the consideration of seniority alone, comparative merit, qualification and suitability had been considered while promoting the respondent No. 2 that the post was newly created in order to assist the Officer in administrative matters in view of the expanded works of the Department and a candidate who on the basis of merit and ability could be appointed to that post was in fact appointed on that post.

(3.) MR . S. A. S. Qadiri the then Secretary to Government, Transport Department, also put in an affidavit and controverted the allegations made by the petitioner. He quoted from certain letters written by the Addl. Transport Commissioner to the Secretary to Government Transport Department about the petitioner he stated on oath that the petitioner had not given a satisfactory account of himself whenever he was given a chance to work on a responsible post, that time and again he was removed from such posts and kept under supervision or attached to some senior officer and that the respondent No. 2 had been appointed because of his merit, ability, administrative skill and aptitude towards labour and administrative problems. The affidavit further stated that only a very capable, energetic person with outstanding merit and ability like respondent No. 2 could be appointed to the post, that for the post of an Administrative Officer the question of seniority or Juniority was not relevant that the post was a newly created one and only an energetic and suitable candidate would suit the post.