Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Fazilat Beegam vs Union Territory Of Jk & Ors on 14 May, 2021

                                                                    SERIAL NO. 111
                                                              SUPPLEMENTARY 1 CAUSELIST
                                                                (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)


              HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                        AT SRINAGAR
                                                            CM No. 3143/2021
                                                        In WP(C) No. 969/2021

Fazilat Beegam.
                                                           ......Petitioner(s)

                          Through:    Mr S.A. Rathore, Advocate.
                                      vs
Union Territory of JK & Ors.
                                                           ......Respondent(s)

                          Through:
CORAM:

             Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.

                                 ORDER

14.05.2021

CM No. 3143/2021;

On the set of facts and the ground urged coupled with submissions

made at Bar, the instant application is allowed and requirement of affixing the

court fee in the shape of stamps etc. is dispensed with for the time being.

However, the deficiency shall be made good by the applicant as and when the

Court starts functioning in the normal manner. CM disposed of accordingly.

WP(C) No. 969/2021;

The instant petition is filed by the petitioner seeking decision of the

revision petition filed by the Respondent No. 3-Rasool Malik S/o Karim

Malik R/o Kralpora, Chadora District Budgam, which is stated to be pending

before Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Srinagar from 2008, on the

grounds detailed out in the petition with particular reference that pendency of

the revision for considerable time without decision has prejudiced the rights

of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner considered the matter and

perused the record available on file.

Merely because the respondent-J&K Special Tribunal is not deciding

the revision petition, which as stated, is pending for considerable time, does

not give cause of action to the petitioner to file the instant petition.

Law on the subject of maintainability of writ petition qua grant of writ

of mandamus, issuing directions against any authority including any statutory

authority is no more res integra, therefore, violation of right is sine-qua-non

for maintaining the writ petition for the relief claimed. This view is also

supported by the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of the country,

while dealing with the scope of 'grant of writs, in case titled 'State of Kerela

V. Smt. A. Lakshmikutty & Ors.; (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 632', at

Paragraph No.34, has observed as under:

"34. We must refer to the case of Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana & Ors., (supra) which was relied upon by learned counsel for the State Government. It is well-settled that a writ of mandamus is not a writ of course or a writ of right, but is, as a rule, discretionary. There must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which a mandamus will lie. The legal right to enforce the performance of a duty must be in the applicant himself. In general, there- fore, the Court will only enforce the performance of statutory duties by public bodies on application of a person who can show that he has himself a legal right to insist on such performance. Applying the principles stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edn., vol. 1, paragarph 122, this Court observed that a person whose name had been recommended for appointment as a District Judge by the High Court under Art. 233(1) had no legal right to the post, nor was the Governor bound to act on the advice of the High Court and therefore he could not ask for a mandamus. It was observed:

"It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right.

The initial appointment of District Judges under Article 233 is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government after consultation with the High Court. The Governor is not bound to act on the advice of the High Court. The High Court recommends the names of persons for appointment. If the names are recommended by the High Court it is not obligatory on the Governor to accept the recommendation.

The consultation of the Governor with the High Court does not mean that the Governor must accept whatever advice of recommendation is given by the High Court. Article 233 requires that the Governor should obtain from the High Court its views on the merits and demerits of persons selected for promotion and direct recruitment."

The existence of a right is the foundation of the jurisdiction of a Court to issue a writ of mandamus. The present trend of judicial opinion appears to be that in the case of non- selection to a post, no writ of mandamus lies."

Again, in the case of 'State of UP & Ors. V. Harish Chandra & Ors.;

(1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 309', at Paragraph No.10, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held thus:

"10. Notwithstanding the aforesaid Statutory Rule and without applying the mind to the aforesaid Rule the High Court relying upon some earlier decisions of the Court came to hold that the list does not expire after a period of one year which on the face of it is erroneous. Further question that arises in this context is whether the High Court was justified in issuing the mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the Writ Petitioners. Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But so mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provision of law or to do something which is contrary to law. This being the position and in view of the Statutory Rules contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules we really fail to understand how the High Court could issue the impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4.4.87 and the list no longer survived after one year and the rights, it any, of persons included in the list did not subsist. In the course of hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, no doubt have pointed out some materials which indicate that the Administrative Authorities have made the appointments from a list beyond the period of one year from its preparation. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in some cases pursuance to the direction of the Court some appointments have been made but in some other cases it might have been done by the Appointing Authority. Even though we are persuaded to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that on some occasion appointments have been made by the Appointing Authority from a select list even after the expiry of one year from the data of selection but such illegal action of the Appointing Authority does not confer a right on an applicant to be enforced by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that such appointments by the Appointing Authority have been made contrary to the provisions of the Statutory Rules for some unknown reason and we deprecate the practice adopted by the Appointing Authority in making such appointments contrary to the Statutory Rules. But at the same time it is difficult for us to sustain the direction given by the High Court since, admittedly, the life of the select list prepared on 4.4.87 had expired long since and the respondents who claim their rights to be appointed on the basis of such list did not have a subsisting right on the date they approached the High Court. We may not be understood to imply that the High Court must issue such direction, if the writ Petition was filed before the expiry of the period of one year and the same was disposed of after the expiry of the statutory period. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours it is not necessary to deal with the question whether the stand of the State Government that there existed one vacancy in the year 1987 is correct or not."

In view of above background, I do not find any merit in the instant writ

petition for the relief claimed, however, the writ petition shall stand disposed of with

direction to the Chairman, JK Special Tribunal to decide the application of the

petitioner seeking decision on the pending revision, expeditiously.