Jammu, Feb 24: In O.A./112/2025 (SRINAGAR) titled SHOWKAT HUSSAIN Vs GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT after hearing CAT ordered as under
1. Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant has sought for the following reliefs: a. Direction to the Respondents to allow the applicant, to join on Class IV Vacancy in the Sheep Husbandry Deptt, on the basis of the Selection in the Final Selection List and allow him all the service benefits with retrospective from the date of appointment of his similarly situated colleagues, made vide G.O.No: 222 of 2024.
b. Direct the Respondents not to fill up any other post of Class IVth vacancy till the case of the applicant is decided by the tribunal.
c. Direct the Respondents to produce all the record pertaining to the selection and appointment of the candidates in the category of handicapped indicating the manner in which the reservations quota has been operated in terms of reservation policy and orders and instructions issued on the subject.
d. Direct the respondents to compensate the applicant for the mental pain and agony caused to him by their arbitrary and illegal action while discriminating him. 2. Alongside the main reliefs, the applicant has also sought for interim relief whereby seeking a direction upon the respondents to allow the applicant to join on any Class-IV post provisionally and also restrain them from making any appointment on Class-IV post.
3. The facts as they stem out of the pleadings of the O.A. are that the applicant is a specially-abled person suffering from 'senso neaural deafness' and falls in the category of 'Deaf and Dumb' candidate. It is stated that in the year 1998, the State Government, on the pattern of Central Government, came with a legislation called "The Jammu & Kashmir Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1990 which was passed by the State Legislature and the same came into force from 19-05-1998 as Act No. 6 of 1998.
4. The respondents through a notification advertised certain posts vide advertisement no. 01 of 2020 dated 26-06-2020 in which a total number of 8575 posts were advertised. The applicant also applied in the prescribed quota of reservation for handicapped.
As a consequence of the advertisement, the applicant was selected as MTS which is substantiated by the notification no. JKSSB/55/2022-02(E-7048574) dated 06-11-2023 in which the applicant figures at serial no. 3 bearing roll no. 261469369191 and the department allotted to the applicant was shown as Animal/Sheep Husbandry & Fisheries.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even an employee verification was uploaded on the Employee Verification System and the same was completed. He submits that thereafter the SSRB vide their communication dated 12-06-2024 also released the withheld recommendation of the applicant who has been selected for the post of Class-IV under RBA/HCH category in Animal/Sheep Husbandry & Fisheries Department in the District Cadre Shopian.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that despite the applicant having been finally selected and his selection also got released, the applicant has been deprived of his appointment.
7. Admittedly, the selection does not confer a right of appointment but at the same time, the applicant could have not been deprived of the fruits of his selection that too when the recruiting agency has also released and recommended the applicant for his appointment. It would be unfair to deprive the applicant of his right of consideration for his appointment.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that action of the respondents is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as also violative of Article 21, as the applicant by the arbitrary acts of the respondents is deprived of his right of livelihood.
He submits that the applicant has a right of legitimate expectations. Admittedly, the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law. A plea of legitimate action can be taken only when public authority breaches a promise and deviates from consistent past practices without any reasonable basis.
9. In the instant case, when the applicant was finally selected and the recruiting agency cleared his case for his appointment, the action of the respondents definitely would be contrary to the doctrine of legitimate expectations. Every candidate has a right to know as to why he is being deprived of a right which has accrued in his favour by dint of his participating in the process of public employment. When employment is a rare commodity in our country that too when law guarantees the rights in favour of specially-abled persons. There can be no discrimination without a valid basis or logical reasoning, as fairness is the hallmark of every action, and reason is the heartbeat of every administrative decision.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Issue notice. Mr. Waseem Gul, GA appears and accepts notice for the respondents and is granted six weeks' time to file his detailed response.
In the meanwhile, subject to objections of the other side and till next date of hearing, the ends of justice warrant that one post of MTS Class-IV shall be kept reserved for the applicant. It is also made clear that the respondents are free to accord consideration for appointment of the applicant, in case, there is no legal impediment in the same.
12. List on 21-05-2025.
|