news details |
|
|
| DB upholds quashment of selection of ASP, directs SSB to recommend name of petitioner | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 18: A division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Dhar uphold the judgment of the writ Court to the extent it has quashed the selection of the Mir Behjat-Un-Nazir as Assistant Superintendent Jail and held the Shazada Musharib entitled to selection for the said post in place of the appellant. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondent Services Selection Board to recommend name of the Shazada Musharib for his appointment as Assistant Superintendent Jail, whereafter the Competent Authority shall accord consideration to his appointment as such.
This significant judgment has been passed in a LPA in which appellant has called in question judgment dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Writ Court in a writ petition filed by respondent No.1 bearing SWP No.567/2012, wherein the said respondent had challenged the selection of appellant against the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail. Vide the impugned judgment of the Writ Court, the selection of appellant has been quashed and the respondent No.1 has been held to be entitled to appointment as Assistant Superintendent Jail.
DB after hearing both the sides observed that it is clear that only one interview of the eligible candidates in respect of both the notification has been conducted and this has been specifically deposed to by SecretaryJ&K Services Selection Board, in his affidavit dated 30th January, 2020, that was called from him pursuant to the order dated 04.12.2019 passed by this Court. Once it is concluded that only one interview of the candidates who had responded to both the notifications was conducted, it defies logic and reason to make two different assessments of a candidate based on a single interview simply because the candidate may have applied in response to more than one notification. In the face of a single interview for both the notifications, the writ petitioner could not have been shown present with reference to one notification and at the same time shown absent in respect of the other. We, therefore, conclude that the Writ Court has rightly proceeded on the assumption that there was only a single interview for both the notifications. —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
