STATE OF J AND K AND ORS. Vs. SYED ROUF AHMAD
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
State of J and K and Ors.
Syed Rouf Ahmad
Click here to view full judgement.
SANJEEV KUMAR, J. -
(1.)This appeal by the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (now Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir), in terms of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment dated 9th of May, 2018, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court (the Writ Court) in SWP No.2508/2017 titled ?Syed Rouf Ahmad vs. State of J&K and others' whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent (the writ petitioner) has been has allowed, order impugned in the writ petition dated 16th of November, 2017 quashed and a direction has been issued to the appellant No.4 to issue the formal order of appointment in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has also been held entitled to all consequential benefits notionally. The appellants are aggrieved and have sought to challenge the impugned judgment on several grounds.
(2.)Before we proceed to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG, on behalf of the appellants, a brief reference to factual antecedents would be advantageous.
(3.)The appellants notified the posts of Constables for selection in the year 2007. The writ petitioner claiming to be eligible for appointment submitted his application form to the appellants. The writ petitioner qualified all the requisite tests and physical standards laid down by the Police Recruitment Board and was eventually selected as Constable in IRP 13th Bn. Pursuant to his selection, the writ petitioner reported to appellant No.4 along with all requisite documents as were mentioned in the selection notification. The writ petitioner even filled up the requisite form required for joining on the post. The writ petitioner was, however, not permitted to join by the appellants on the ground that on measurement of physical standards, he was found deficient in height by 25 centimeters (cms). Aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed a representation before the appellant No.2 on 05.06.2007 contending, inter alia, that his height and other physical standards had been measured by the Recruitment Board and, therefore, appellant No.4 was not competent to re-measure the same and deny him appointment on the ground that he was falling short in height by 25 cms. The writ petitioner claims to have filed representation after representation but there was no decision by the appellants on any of his representations
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.