Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd Rafeeq Age 50 Years vs The Hon'Ble High Court Of J&K And on 4 October, 2023
Sr.No. 37
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 325/2023
Mohd Rafeeq Age 50 years .... Petitioner(s)
S/o Sh. Faquir Mohd
R/o Dharana, Teh: Mendhar and Distt. Poonch.
Through :- Petitioner in person.
V/s
1. The Hon'ble High Court of J&K and
Ladakh through The Registrar General,
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and
Ladakh.
2. The Principal Secretary to Hon'ble
Chief Justice, High Court of Jammu and
Kashmir and Ladakh.
3. The Chairman Selection Committee for
the post of Jr. Assistant through The
Registrar General, High Court of Jammu
and Kashmir and Ladakh.
4. Arshad Ahmad S/o Lal Hussain
R/o Village Darhal Malkan, Teh. & Distt.
Poonch.
5. Sabar Hussain S/o Sh. Fazal Hussain
R/o Village Narol Teh. Mendhar & Distt.
Poonch.
6. Mohd. Mushtaq S/o Sh. Barkat Ali
R/o Village Sandhori Kanna Chhargal
Teh. & Distt. Jammu.
7. Sowami Raj S/o Sh. Mangat Ram
R/o Village Kanthal Teh. Bani & Distt.
Kathua.
8. Mohd. Akram S/o Mohd. Ishaq
R/o Village Part Teh.. Sunderbani, Distt.
Rajouri.
9. Khurshid Ahmed S/o Mohd. Hussain
R/o Village Fatehpur Teh. & Distt.
Rajouri.
2
10. Mohd. Farooq S/o Sh. Misri Khan
R/o Village Kallar Kattal, Teh. & Distt.
Poonch.
11. Nazir Hussain S/o Sh. Mohd Alam
R/o Village Chowki Handan Kinara Teh.
Nowshera, Distt. Rajouri.
12. Mohd. Ramzan S/o Mohd Fazal
R/o Village Katarmal Teh. & Distt.
Rajouri.
13. Azeem Maqbool S/o Sh. Maqbool
Hussain
R/o Village Buttala Bhaderwah, Distt.
Doda.
14. Abdul Hamid S/o Sh. Mir Hussain
R/o Village Fatehpur Teh. & Distt.
Rajouri.
.......Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. H.A. Siddiqui, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT(Oral)
04.10.2023.
Sanjeev Kumar-J
1. The grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition is that vide
advertisement notification No. 106 dated 09.04.2009, the applications were
invited from eligible candidates of Jammu Division for filling up Jammu cadre
posts of Junior Assistant.
2. The selection process was undertaken by the selection committee
constituted by the High Court for the purpose. The selection process culminated
into select list in the year 2013 in which the petitioner could not find his name
amongst the selected candidates.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner called in question the select list in
SWP No. 1895/2013 titled "Mohd. Rafeeq v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
and Ors" seeking inter alia a Writ of Certiorari to set aside and quash the
selection of private respondents as Junior Assistant by declaring the same as
illegal. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to re-draw and prepare the merit
afresh giving weightage to higher qualification of the petitioner and his
performance in the written examination.
4. The writ petition came for consideration by this Court on 30.12.2019
when learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not press the prayers made
in the writ petition and rather stated at bar that the writ petition may be disposed
of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner by
treating his writ petition as representation. The prayer of the petitioner was
accepted and, accordingly, vide order dated 30.12.2019, the writ petition was
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioner by treating it as a representation. The matter thus came up for
consideration before the respondent-High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and
Ladakh.
5. The High Court concluded that the grievance projected by the
petitioner, in his writ petition that he was more meritorious than the selected
candidates, could not be verified due to non-availability of relevant record
which, as per the report of the record office, had been lost in the devastating
flood in September, 2014. The consideration order bearing No. 155 of 2022/Psy
dated 07.02.2022 was passed by the High Court.
6. It is this order of consideration which the petitioner has called in
question in this petition with a prayer for quashing the same. The petitioner has
also prayed for quashing the selection of private respondent Nos. 4 to 14 as
Junior Assistant by declaring the same as illegal. The respondents have filed
their objections and have supported the consideration order passed by the High
Court.
7. Having heard the petitioner in person and Mr. H.A. Siddiqui, learned
counsel appearing for the High Court, we are of the considered view that there is
no merit in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
8. From a plain reading of impugned consideration order dated
07.02.2022, it becomes abundantly clear that other than making a bald assertion
that the petitioner had a better merit than the selected candidates, no substantial
material has been placed on record to corroborate the aforesaid submission.
9. That apart, when the earlier writ petition bearing SWP No. 1895/2013
filed by the petitioner was disposed of, the petitioner had foregone his challenge
to the select list and the selection of the private respondents. However, he felt
satisfied with the direction to the respondents to consider his representation. The
respondents have considered this representation and plea of the petitioner that he
was more meritorious, though not supported by any material, could not be
verified due to non-availability of relevant selection record which had been lost
in the devastating floods of September, 2014.
10. In these circumstances, no relief should have been granted to the
petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner
projected in the writ petition.
11. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this petition and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(Mohan Lal) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
Jammu:
04.10.2023. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Neha-1 Whether the order is reportable:Yes/No
