High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Sheeraz Ahmad Thoker vs State of J&K & Ors.

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 5 May 2017 · Citation: (2017) 05 J&K CK 0015

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ramalingam Sudhakar
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
654 of 2017 MP No 01 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

27 paragraphs · 486 words
1.

The Writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

(A) Mandamus commanding the respondents to refrain from acting upon notice published in newspaper on 29.09.2014 and 13.01.2015 to the

extent of appointment of Lab. Tech posts under NRHM scheme in Health Block Shopian.

(B) By issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may be commanded to conduct a fresh process of selection treating the

earlier one as non-est in- effective and inoperative, pursuant to advertisement notice dated 29.09.2014 and 13.01.2015 separately, independent of

each other.

2.

Heard Mr. Mir Manzoor, Adv. for the petitioners and Mr. M. I. Dar, AAG for the respondents.

3.

Grievance of the petitioners is that advertisement notice dated 29.01.2014 and 13.01.2015, were issued for the appointment to the posts of

Lab Assistants/Lab Tech and pharmacists in the Health Department under National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) in Block Shopian. The two

petitioners are the contenders for the said posts. On 9th September 2015, respondents published the list of eligible candidates in the Daily News

Paper for conducting the screening test. Thereafter, the screening test was postponed which was scheduled to be held on 15th March 2017.

4.

Petitioners allege that the list issued by the respondents for conductance of screening figures the ineligible candidates. It is stated that one

Showket Hussain Naik and Mushtaq Ahmad Wani were not shown in the list of eligible candidates but were called for the screening test, published

in the local daily newspaper.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners are having the apprehension that the persons will get appointment who are not lawfully

eligible or entitled to get the appointment. This is the sum and substance of the instant writ petition.

6.

In this regard, petitioners have made a representation to the Chief Medical Officer, Shopian dated 23rd March 2017. It is further pleaded that

mandamus be granted commanding the respondents to refrain from acting upon the notice published in newspaper on 29.09.2014 and

13.01.2015.

7.

Mr. Dar, learned AAG states that first relief cannot be granted as the same has become infructuous by afflux of time because the authorities

have already published the date of screening test to which petitioners have participated and therefore, the question of granting the said relief does

not arise. The only issue that can be considered is whether representation dated 23rd March 2017, is having any substance, alleging that two

persons were wrongly called for the screening test. This is a matter of record, if there is any substance in the representation made by the two

petitioners, same will be considered by the Authority concerned. The relief sought by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be granted.

However, Chief Medical Officer, Shopian is directed to look into the matter and dispose of the representation, if any, filed by the two petitioners

expeditiously.

8.

The writ petition is disposed of along with connected MPs.