Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Dr. Shoket Mehmood Chowdhary vs State Of J&K And Others on 29 March, 2022
Sr. No. 43
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
ATJAMMU
CJ Court
Case: LPASW No. 43 of 2016
Dr. Shoket Mehmood Chowdhary .....Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Sh. Z.A.Shah, Sr. Advocate with
M/s. Javed Iqbal & Monish Chopra,
Advocates
v/s
State of J&K and Others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Sh. Amit Gupta, AAG for respondent
No.1
Sh. M.Y.Akhoon, Advocate vice
Sh.F.A.Natnoo, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 -JKPSC
Sh. M.K.Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with
Sh. Ajay Abrol, Advocate for rest of the
respondents.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER
29.03.2022
01. The appellant-Dr. Shoket Mehmood Chowdhary has preferred this
Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order dated 08.03.2016, passed
by the learned Single Judge, dismissing SWP No. 2310/2009, 'Dr. Gurmeet
Singh v. State of J&K and Others'.
02. Dr. Gurmeet Singh had filed the above writ petition for the quashing of
the select list issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission
and for the quashing of the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 7, as lecturers
in the discipline of Medicine in Government Medical College, Jammu and to
select him as the lecturer in Medicine and to appoint him.
03. In the said writ Petition, the appellant-Dr. Shoket Mehmood Chowdhary
was respondent No.6. Therefore, as per the relief claimed in the writ petition,
the challenge was also to his selection and appointment. However, though the
appellant-Dr. Shoket Mehmood Chowdhary continued to participate and
contest the proceedings, on the statement of the Senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner-Dr. Gurmeet Singh that he does not want to press any relief
against respondent Nos. 4 to 7, the Court vide order dated 16.02.2016
dismissed the writ petition against the said respondents including the appellant-
respondent No. 6, Dr. Shoket Mehmood Chowdahary.
04. In other words, the challenge to his selection and appointment was given
up and the same was confined in respect of respondent No. 3, Dr. Vijiant Singh
Chandail.
05. The above writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the judgment and
order impugned in this appeal.
06. In substance, the dispute in the writ petition was confined to the
selection and appointment of Dr. Vijiant Singh Chandail as lecturer in the
department of Medicine in Government Medical College, Jammu on the
ground that he is not eligible to hold the said post. The eligibility of the
appellant-respondent No.6, Dr. Shoket Mehmood Chowdhary was no longer
involved and there was no challenge subsisting regarding his selection and
appointment as the writ petition against him was dismissed on 16.02.2016
which order is and final and in challenge.
07. In the light of the above backdrop, Sh. M.K.Bhardwaj, Senior counsel
appearing for the respondents, submits that the appellant has no locus standi to
maintain the writ petition, as he is not a person aggrieved by the impugned
judgment and order.
08. Sh. Z.A.Shah, Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that
the appellant was a party in the writ petition as respondent No. 6. The relief
against him was got deleted at the fag end of the proceedings and that the
appellant was rendered with no remedy except to take recourse to filing of this
appeal after the judgment. He further submits that his seniority would be
affected and, therefore, he is a person aggrieved.
09. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated above, the writ petition
filed by the petitioner-Dr. Gurmeet Singh, in the ultimate analysis, challenged
only the selection and appointment of the third respondent to the writ petition,
namely, Dr. Vijiant Singh Chandial. The challenge, if any, to the appointment
of other respondents including that of the appellant was given up as recorded
by the writ court. Thus, no relief in the writ petition was sought against the
appellant-respondent No. 6, Dr. Shoket Mehmood Chowdhary. The writ
petition was ultimately dismissed. The appellant-respondent No. 6 ceased to
have any connection with the said writ petition and, therefore, on its dismissal,
he is not a person aggrieved. The appellant-respondent No. 6, Dr. Shoket
Mehmmod Chowdhary has not independently challenged or questioned the
selection and appointment of any party, much less the respondent No. 3, Dr.
Vijiant Singh Chandial. Therefore, by means of this appeal, he cannot be
permitted to challenge appointment of respondent No.3's so as to allow him to
move up in the seniority. Respondent No. 3, Dr. Vijiant Singh Chandial was
selected long back in the year 2009 and till date, the appellant took no steps to
get his selection and appointment set aside or quashed. He cannot be permitted
to seek relief in this regard in a petition filed by a third party only for the
reason he was one of the respondents against whom in the end no relief was
claimed and the petition stood dismissed by a separate order.
10. The petitioner-Dr. Gurmeet Singh, who had filed the writ petition, has
not challenged the judgment and order of the writ court dismissing the writ
petition. Therefore, the appellant, who was only a respondent in the said writ
petition against whom no relief was claimed, has no locus standi to file any
appeal.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appellant-
respondent No. 6, Dr. Shoket Mehmood Chowdhary is certainly not a person
aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dismissing the above referred
writ petition to enable him to maintain this appeal.
12. Since the appellant-Dr. Shoket Mehmood Chowdhary has no locus
standi to maintain this appeal, we need not go into the merits of the writ
petition as to whether respondent No. 3, Dr. Vijiant Singh Chandial is eligible
for selection and appointment on the post of lecturer, department of Medicine
and we leave the aforesaid question to be considered, if necessary, in an
appropriate case.
13. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) (PANKAJ MITHAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
JAMMU
29.03.2022
Tilak.
