NASEEM AMIR SHAH Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-1999-3-39
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on March 16,1999

Naseem Amir Shah Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) CONSIDERED . Admitted.
(2.) MR . Attar tenders a statement at bar that the objections filed on behalf of respondents may be treated as reply. The statement is taken on record, pleadings are complete. The matter has been heard finally.
(3.) NASEEM Amir Shah petitioner was appointed as Marketting Inspector on 01.07.1996, in the office of Assistant Marketting Officer Lucknow by the then Assistant Marketting Officer Lucknow who happen to be the father of the petitioner said Naseem Amir Shah. He came to be appointed in the arrangement created by transfer of one A.R. Mir Marketting Inspector to Delhi on stop gap arrangement till posting of any suitable person from the Head Office with condition that he shall have claim to continue after a gap of one year in which case he shall be treated as regular temporary employee of the Directorate of Horticulture of the State. The petitioner joined and worked as such Marketting Inspector till 21.08.1998. The Government of J&K terminated his services vide order No: 186 CHPM of 1998 dated: 22.08.1998. This termination order is impugned in the writ petition and is prayed to be quashed and petitioner allowed to continue to discharge his duties as Marketting Inspector with payment of salary attached to the post through appropriate writ. In reply respondents are admitting the appointment of petitioner as markerting Inspector on 01.07.96 by the then Assistant Marketting Officer Lucknow, the father of the petitioner. It is averred that the father of the petitioner abused and mis -used his official position and acted violation of rules to benefit his own son. The appointment is alleged to be dehors the selection rules. Appointment to the post of Grading and Marketting Inspector has to be made through State Selection Recruitment Board under SSRB Rules (SRO 194/92). The selection having been made by the SSRB and appointment having been made by the Competent authority to the post, the petitionerâ„¢s services stand terminated. It is however, stated that the arrangement of the petitioner was just a stop gap arrangement and even in the earlier writ SWP 186/98 filed by the petitioner he did not succeeded as prayer of regularisation of his services as grading and Markerting Inspector was declined by the court. The petition is prayed to be dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.