MOHD HUSSAIN SHAH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY medium of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Government Order No: 186/FST of 1984, dated 3.1.1984 (Annexure C to the writ petition) pertaining to the final seniority list of the Assistant Conservators of Forest. The petitioners along with the respondent Nos: 3 to 14 had appeared in a competitive examination held by the State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as commission) for recruitment of the posts of Assistant Conservators of Forest in the Jammu & Kashmir Forest Service in the year 1976. In all, 30 candidates were selected by the commission including the petitioners and the respondent Nos: 3 to 14. In that list, the petitioners were ranked at 14th and 15th position. The list was approved by the Government. On 4th January, 1978, the Government appointed candidates from the said list as Assistant Conservators of Forest. From these appointees, the last candidate Shri Asgar Inayatullah ranked at 29th position in the selection list. The other four candidates were senior to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the appointment of Shri Asgar Inayatullah by medium of a writ petition. During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioners were also appointed on 8.4.1981. Consequently, the petitioners withdrew the writ petition. The state, however, assured the court that the interse seniority shall be determined by the Government later on. However, when the final seniority list was issued on 3.1.1984 it ranked Asgar Inayatullah at 42nd position and the petitioners at 54th and 55th positions. Similarly, the other respondents were, allegedly, junior to them in the select list and they have been higher positions in the seniority list. The representations made by them to the Government in this behalf have been rejected. The petitioners have assailed the said seniority list, inter -alia, on the following ground: -

(2.) WHEN the writ petition came up in the court for consideration on 25 10.1985, it was admitted on the very hearing. The court directed that the promotions, if any, made from the date onwards, those shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.

(3.) NOTICES were issue to the respondents after the admission of the writ petition. For respondents Nos: 1 and 2 the Government Advocate appeared. The other respondents did not appear despite service. The Government Advocate was given ample opportunity to file the counter affidavit, who however, failed to file the same. The averments made by the petitioners in the petition are on affidavit, which have remained unrebutted for want of any counter affidavit. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.