Khurshid Ahmed vs
2021 Latest Caselaw 819 j&K

                                                                   S. No.202
                HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                              AT JAMMU


                                                        RPSW No. 9/2013


     Khurshid Ahmed                                               ...Petitioner(s)

                     Through :- Mr. M. Y. Akhoon, Advocate

                    v/s
                     <




't
     State of J&K and others                                  .....Respondent(s)

                     Through :-



Coram:          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE



                                       ORDER

1. By the medium of this review petition filed in terms of order 47 of

Code of Civil Procedure(CPC) read with Rule 65 of J&K High Court Rules, the

petitioner seeks review of judgment dated 28.12.2012 passed by this Court in

SWP No. 805/2007 titled Khurshid Ahmed V. State of J&K and others.

2. The judgment is sought to be reviewed primarily on the ground that

the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on the basis of false

averment made by the respondents in their objections that Government Order No.

1786-GAD of 1997 dated 11.11.1997 stood withdrawn vide Government Order

No. 30-GAD of 1998 dated 08.10.1998.

3. The short grievance projected by the petitioner in the writ petition,

which was disposed of vide order under review, was that, pursuant to Circular

issued by respondent No. 2, respondents No. 4 and 5 had been appointed as Class

IV whereas the petitioner who was similarly situated was ignored. The petitioner

in essence sought parity in the matter of appointment with respondents No. 4 and

5. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents who in their objections took

a stand that vide Government Order No. 1786-GAD of 1997 dated 11.11.1997,

the power to make selection and appointment to the post of Class IV came to be

vested in the head of Department and consequently, process was initiated and in

terms of Circular No. FC(NG-ODY) dated 20.04.1998, recommendations were

sought from the Deputy Commissioners of each district. It is on the basis of

recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner Rajouri that respondents No. 4

and 5 were appointed. The petitioner's application which was submitted to the

Financial Commissioner too was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner,

Rajouri vide letter dated 02.12.1998 for examination of his case. It is the stand

taken by the respondents in the objections that because of issuance of

Government Order dated 11.11.1997, the power to make selection and

appointment was vested in the head of the Department, therefore, the Deputy

Commissioners, not being the head of the department, could not take any further

action on the application of the petitioner.

4. It is true that in the objections, the respondents have also stated that

Government Order dated 11.11.1997 was later on rescinded vide Government

Order No. 30-GAD of 1998 dated 08.10.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner

has taken me to Government Order No. 30-GAD of 1998 dated 08.10.1998 and a

perusal thereof would clearly indicate that the aforesaid averment made by the

respondents in the objections was not correct. However, the aforesaid wrong

averment made by the respondents in the objections would not affect the merits

of the case of the petitioner. The Court after taking all aspects into consideration

did not find any merit in the petition and same was, accordingly, dismissed.

5. I do not find any error apparent on the face of record which would

impel this Court to review the order passed on 28.12.2012.

6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this review

petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JAMMU 05.08.2021 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No