Muneer Ahmad Shigan vs Sheri Kashmir University Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1010 j&K/2

                                                                           Sr. No. 13
                                                                           Suppl. 1
     IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT SRINAGAR

                                LPA No. 158/2023
                             In WP(C) No. 2029/2019
                                CM No. 5130/2023

Muneer Ahmad Shigan                                         ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)

Through:       Mr. Altaf Haqani, Sr. Advocate, with
               Mr. Shakir Haqani, Advocate
                                         Vs.

Sheri Kashmir University of                 Agricultural               ...Respondent(s)
Sciences and Technology and Ors
Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
                                    ORDER

23.08.2023

1. Heard Mr. Altaf Haqani, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shakir Haqani, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The plea of the petitioner is that the private-respondents joined service in 2006 though they were not eligible, and their appointments were challenged by the petitioner successfully before the Court, but their services were not disturbed and were allowed to continue from 2006 on compassionate ground. The petitioner was also subsequently appointed in 2015, and was seeking seniority over them which, however, has not been allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2014 passed in SWP No. 778/2007.

3. Accordingly, being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to Paras 16, 17 and 25 of the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2014 passed in SWP No. 778/2007, wherein it was observed as follows:

"16. From the above over view of the facts, it is to be concluded that respondent No. 4 to 9 were ineligible for the advertized post and ought not have been allowed to participate in the selection process, much less selected and appointed as Computer Programers (Training Assistant) in the respondent University. Let us now look at the petitioner's academic record.

17. It is pertinent to point out that petitioner's eligibility is not disputed by the respondent No. 1 to 3. He has been allowed to participate in the selection process and considered for the advertized post. Respondent No. 4 to 9 dispute some of the Degrees claimed by the petitioner to have been earned by him, without putting question mark on his eligibility. It may nonetheless be seen, whether petitioner was eligible for the advertized post as his ineligibility would knock the very bottom out of this case.

25. For the reasons discussed, writ petition is allowed and respondent No. 4, 5, 7 and 8 held not to have been eligible for the advertized post and appointed notwithstanding their ineligibility. The selection process is also held to be arbitrary and therefore in conflict with Article 14 and 16 Constitution of India. However, without disturbing appointment of other respondents, respondent No. 1 to 3 are directed to appoint petitioner against the available post of Computer Programmer (Training Assistant) subject to completion of usual formalities like verification of antecedents, Academic Certificates etc, applicable under rules like."

4. Thus, it has been submitted that the aforesaid order would clearly indicate that the services of private respondents were retained in spite of them being ineligible, hence, they cannot be given any benefit over the appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner submits that the appellant ought to have been appointed in their place in 2006 itself. Accordingly, it has been submitted that, in view of the impugned order, if the present private respondents are given any benefit which is not granted to the petitioner, the same will cause great prejudice.

5. In view of the above, subject to objections and till next date of hearing before the Bench, it is directed that no action which is beneficial to the interest of private respondents and which is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant/petitioner be taken till the next date.

6. Issue notice to the respondents returnable within four weeks'. The appellant to take steps within one week.

7. List on 16.10.2023.

                (M.A. CHOWDHARY)                        (N.KOTISWAR SINGH)
                     JUDGE                                 CHIEF JUSTICE

 SRINAGAR
 23.08.2023
 Junaid