Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On: 20.11.2025 vs Gulab Chand And Others on 27 November, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3944-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No: LPASW No.60/2011
c/w
LPASW No. 65/2011
LPASW No. 67/2011
Reserved on: 20.11.2025
Pronounced on: 27.11.2025
Uploaded on: 27.11.2025
Whether the operative part or full
Judgment is pronounced: Full
Champa Devi and another.
...Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. S.S.Ahmed, Advocate
v/s
Gulab Chand and others
a/w connected matters
.... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting Counsel to
Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG for official
respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
PER OSWAL-J
1. All these three intra-court appeals arise out of a common judgment
dated 07.10.2010 rendered by the learned writ Court in SWP No.
1432/2002.
2. LPASW No. 60/2011 has been preferred by Champa Devi &
Dhamanter Singh; LPASW No. 65/2011 has been preferred by the State
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3944-DB
of J&K & others; and LPASW No. 67/2011 has been preferred by the
J&K Service Selection Board. For ease of reference and clarity, the
facts recited herein are drawn from the first intra-court appeal, i.e.,
LPASW No. 60/2011.
3. Pursuant to Notification No. 01 of 1999 dated 09.03.1999 issued by the
J&K Service Selection Board (respondent No. 3), the appellants
submitted their applications for the post of Teachers under the
Scheduled Caste Category for District Cadre Doda. Following the
selection process, a select list was published on January 6, 2002,
placing the appellants at Serial Nos. 3 and 22 respectively under the
Scheduled Caste category. Consequent thereto, appointment orders
were issued in their favour. Appellant No. 1 came to be posted at
Primary School, Bunda, Chatroo, Kishtwar, while Appellant No. 2 was
posted at Middle School, Sindra, Bhaderwah, Doda.
4. Private respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) filed the writ petition,
SWP No. 1432/2002, to quash the selection list of Teachers for District
Cadre to the extent it included the appellants, and also to quash the
waiting list issued under the Scheduled Caste category. The learned writ
Court, upon consideration, disposed of the said writ petition vide
judgment dated 07.10.2010 and issued the following directions:
"In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Keeping in
view the fact that respondent 4 and 5 are working as teacher since
2002, it would not be appropriate to quash their appointments. I
direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Teacher against
any available vacancy, in Doda District within a period of three
months from today. In case, needful is not done within the
aforesaid period, selection of the private respondents No.4 and 5
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3944-DB
shall stand quashed. Compliance report in this behalf shall be
submitted by the respondents in the end of January, 2011.
Registry to maintain the index of the file and list the same
in the first week of February, 2011.
Disposed of."
5. The appellants, being aggrieved of the judgment dated 07.10.2010,
have questioned the same primarily on the ground that the learned writ
Court, without examining the relevant selection records and by
presuming the averments of the contesting respondent No.1 (the writ
petitioner) to be correct, proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. The
appellants also contend that the official respondents failed to place the
true and correct facts before the learned Single Judge. However,
subsequent to the passing of the impugned judgment, the Secretary,
Service Selection Board, Jammu addressed a communication dated
13.12.2010 to the Secretary, Education Department, Jammu, wherein it
was clarified that respondent No.1-Gulab Chand had secured only
26.96 points, whereas the appellants had secured 41.53 and 33.66
points, respectively. The appellants have specifically set out their merit
position as well as that of respondent No.1 (the writ petitioner) in the
present appeal.
6. In the two connected appeals arising out of the same judgment, the
similar issue has been raised by the appellants therein.
7. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1(the writ petitioner).
Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting Counsel to Mr. Raman Sharma, learned
AAG, has appeared for the official respondents and has also produced
the relevant record of selection.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:3944-DB
8. A bare perusal of the record demonstrates that appellant No.1, Champa
Devi, had secured 41.53 points, and appellant No.2, Dhamanter Singh,
had secured 33.66 points, whereas respondent No.1 (the writ
petitioner)-Gulab Chand, had secured only 26.96 points. The record
clearly establishes that Respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) scored
lesser points than the Appellants. The Appellants contend that the
learned Writ Court erred by presuming the correctness of Respondent
No. 1's averments in the writ petition, without calling for and examining
the selection record. This error, according to the Appellants, led to the
passing of the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment itself
vindicates the appellants' stand, observing that the official respondents
failed to produce the necessary record.
9. Considering the undisputed position that Respondent No. 1 (the writ
petitioner) secured lesser points than the Appellants, we conclude that
the learned Writ Court's judgment fails to withstand judicial scrutiny.
Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 07.10.2010 passed by the
learned Writ Court is set aside. As a result, SWP No. 1432/2002 shall
stand dismissed. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
10.Registry to return the record to learned A.A.G.
(Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli)
Judge Chief Justice
Jammu
27.11.2025
Madan Verma-Secy
Whether order is speaking? Yes.
Whether order is reportable? No.
