Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Territory Of J&K Through vs Sonika Sharma on 28 February, 2024
Bench: Tashi Rabstan, Puneet Gupta
Sr. No. 31
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 24/2023
CM No. 1242/2023
1. Union Territory of J&K through ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Commissioner/Secretary to Forest Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Van
Bhawan Jammu.
3. Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu.
Through :- Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG.
V/s
Sonika Sharma ....Respondent(s)
D/O Sh. Kuldeep Raj Sharma
R/O H. No.365 MCJ 603
Lane No.14, Raj Pura, Jammu
Through :- Mr. Navyug Sethi, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
28.02.2024
1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the interlocutory order
dated 14.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CPSW No.153/2019 in
SWP No. 1014/2018 titled 'Sonika Sharma v. Manoj Kumar Diwedi and others'
and a prayer is made to set-aside the impugned order.
2. While disposing of writ petition SWP No.1014/2018 on 23.05.2018,
the following order was passed:
"Notice.
Mr. Rohit Kapoor, learned AAG waives notice on behalf of
respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
would feel satisfied in case the petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to act upon the waiting list of Junior
Assistants, Forest Department, Divisional Cadre Jammu, issued
on 23.01.2016 within a certain time frame. Statement of learned
senior counsel is taken on record.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the respondents to act upon the waiting list of Junior Assistants,
Forest Department, Divisional Cadre Jammu, issued on
23.01.2016 in reference of Advertisement Notice No.09 of 2013,
dated 21.06.2013, item No.703, under rules, against the vacancy
remained unfilled, if any, due to non-joining of some of the
candidates in Open Merit category, if there is no legal
impediment. Let this exercise be completed within a period of
eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order along
with copy of the writ petition and its annexures are made
available to them.
Disposed of as above, along with connected MP."
3. Feeling dis-satisfied by the non implementation of the above order, the
petitioner filed CPSW No.153/2019 in which following interlocutory order was
passed on 14.10.2022, the operative part of it reads:
"Respondents are directed to reconsider the matter in view of the
judgment passed by this Court sought to be implemented as required
under law and in case of any impediment on the basis of life of the
waiting list the same be processed for relaxation of rules. Let needful
be done within a period of six weeks."
4. It is the above order which the appellants pray to be set-aside.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire file.
6. Perusal of the order dated 14.10.2022 would show that appellants had
filed compliance report on 09.05.2022 where after considering the case of the
petitioner, the appellant no.3-Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu has rejected
the case on 04.05.2022, as the same could not be considered due to legal
impediment.
7. The direction passed in SWP No.1014/2018 on 23.05.2018 was the
directions to the appellants to act upon the waiting list of Junior Assistants under
rules, against the unfilled vacancies due to non-joining of some of the candidates
in Open Merit category, only if there is no legal impediment.
8. In our view, the interlocutory order passed in the contempt petition is
against the provisions of the Contempt of Court's Act as the court has exceeded
its jurisdiction so far as it directs the appellants to extend the life of wait list by
relaxing the rules. Otherwise too, the writ petition that was decided on
23.05.2018 was not decided on merits.
9. Viewed thus, the order dated 14.10.2022 to the extent that it directs
'and in case of any impediment on the basis of life of the waiting list the same
be processed for relaxation of rules' is set-aside. As such, the appeal is partly
allowed to the aforesaid extent.
10. The writ petition was decided on 23.05.2018 and appellants were
directed to consider the case of the petitioner within eight weeks from the date a
certified copy of order was received upon them. However, the appellants had
taken almost 4 years to consider the case of the petitioner.
11. In that view of the matter, the writ petitioner/respondent herein is at
liberty to challenge the consideration order if he is so advised.
)
(Puneet Gupta) (Tashi Rabstan)
Jammu: Judge Judge
28.02.2024
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is speaking? : No.
Whether the order is reportable? : No.
