Arshad Ahmad Lone And Ors vs Ut Of J&K And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1209 j&K/2

                                                                        S-44

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
                                           * *********
                                                                      CPSW no. 688/2018 in
                                                                        SWP No. 2255/2018
Arshad Ahmad Lone and ors
                                                                     .............Petitioner(s)

                            Through:- Mr. Zahoor A. Shah, adv with
                                      Mr. Zahoor A. Malik, Adv.
                                         , Adv



                                                 Vs.
UT of J&K and ors
                                                                     ..........Respondent(s)

Through: - Mr. Sajjad Ashraf Mir GA.

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.

Secretary, J&K Service Selection Board, has filed an affidavit in terms of order passed on 04.06.2021.

Petitioners allege violation of order passed on 24.09.2018 passed in SWP No. 2255/2018 & CM no. 01/2018 in terms whereof this Court while issuing notice had in the meanwhile directed respondent no.1 to consider the claim of the petitioners for their appointment pursuant to selection made by the Jammu & Kashmir Service Selection Board ( hereinafter referred to as the Board) against the post of Food Inspectors.

Since the recommendation of petitioners despite selection was noticed to be with-held by the Board on the ground that petitioners are not possession three months training in Food Inspection and Sampling work. Therefore, in terms of order dated 03.09.2019, the counsel appearing for the Board was asked to ensure meeting of the petitioners with the Chairman of the Board for giving them patient hearing for settlement of the matter.

In terms of order passed on 24th Sept. 2019, The Chairman of the Board was directed to make an endeavor to finalize the selection. The Secretary, of the Board was asked to file an affidavit which stands filed. Perusal of the affidavit reveals that selection process initiated on the requisition of the Intending Department vis-à-vis Health and Medical Education, Department, against the posts of Food Inspectors was concluded but the recommendations were with-held subject to production of three months training in Food Inspection & Sampling under a Food (Health) authority or in institution approved for the purpose by the Central Govt. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not meeting the requirement of the qualification, therefore, no further action is taken.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

Mr. Zahoor A. Shah learned counsel for the petitioners when asked, submitted that there is no need to withheld the selection of petitioners as the selection has already been made and the petitioners are found eligible, as such there is no reason for the respondents to turn around. He further submits that in whole of India this training is not imparted and the issue of training, as a matter of fact, is also without substance, therefore, the petitioners in such circumstances are left with no option but to seek relief from the Court that the Board shall make recommendations for their appointment, and the Government shall allocate some funds for the purposes of imparting training. Learned counsel has placed on record copy of the judgment rendered by "High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur, in writ petition no. 1354/2016 dated 13.10.2016" on the same point.

Considering the matter in the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the merit of the matter cannot be discussed in the contempt petition, the scope of contempt is limited to the extent of ensuring implementation of the orders. Since the order passed by the court is an ad-interim in nature and the direction was issued to respondent no.1 i.e., Govt. for appointment, which consideration cannot be made unless recommendation is made by the Board. The Board has already explained the position of not making the recommendations which can be gone into while deciding the writ petition.

Without making any observation or recording any finding that may prejudice to the rights of the parties it has become necessary to dispose of this contempt petition by observing that no contempt is made out of the interim orders. The Court is of the opinion that writ petition shall be decided finally, therefore, in view of the above contempt petition shall stand disposed of as settled.

The writ petition shall be listed on 20th Oct. 2021.

(Ali Mohammad Magrey)

Judge

Srinagar, 29.09.21 Ayaz/Secy

SYED AYAZ HUSSAIN 2021.09.29 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document