Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 18: A Division Bench of High Court comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nangal has criticized the Law Department for favouring the appellant.
While dismissing the appeal filed by the State, the DB observed, “this court is constrained to observe that appellant-Nazir Ahmed Thakur, for obvious reasons, was always allowed to steal a march over and above respondent-Renu Mahajan without any basis, first by giving promotion on officiating basis as Law Officer, Grade-II, much before respondent Renu Mahajan, thereafter, again on officiating basis, pending clearance by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), as Senior Law Officer and Additional Secretary thereby keeping Nazir Ahmed Thakur at Serial No.1 and Renu Mahajan at Serial No.2 without fixing their seniority in the basic category of Legal Assistants (earlier Public Law Officer) ignoring the fact that she was senior to appellant-Nazir Ahmed Thakur”.
“It was not the case of official writ respondents that appellant-Nazir Ahmed Thakur was having better ACRs than that of respondent-Renu Mahajan or that respondent-Renu Mahajan was lacking in performing her official duties, rather we found that the whole approach of official respondents was wrong”, the DB said.
“It seems the official writ respondents as well as the entire Government machinery, particularly the Law Department was behind appellant-Nazir Ahmed Thakur to give him undue favour at the cost of respondent-Renu Mahajan right from the year 2001 and in the melee respondent-Renu Mahajan came to be retired from service during the period the judgment came to be reserved for pronouncement of judgment”, the DB said.
“In the given circumstances, we really do not appreciate the manner in which the official writ respondents with malafide intentions favoured appellant-Nazir Ahmed Thakur and rejected the case of respondent-Renu Mahajan without any basis proving the proverb might is right, or the one who has a power is always right”, the DB said.
These Letters Patent Appeal are directed against the common judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Single Judge in SWP No.1042/2014 and SWP No.309/2016, whereby the Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions quashed the impugned seniority list issued vide Government Order No.2129-LD (Estt) of 2015 dated 20.07.2015 to the extent of writ respondent-Nazir Ahmad Thakur and writ petitioner-Renu Mahajan, shown at seniority position No.1 and No.2 respectively in category-D (Legal Assistants); with a further direction to writ respondent No.1 to redraw the seniority list by showing writ petitioner-Renu Mahajan at seniority position No.1 and writ respondent-Nazir Ahmad Thakur at seniority position No.2 in category-D (Legal Assistants).
The DB dismissed the appeals with the observations: “It is also the proposition of law that the delay and laches should be considered before admission of the writ petition. The petition has not been admitted subject to delay and laches, which were not pressed at the time of its admission. Therefore, the writ petition under such circumstances cannot be dismissed on account of delay and laches. Therefore, we are not inclined to take a view other than the one taken by the Single Judge”.
Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State as well as Nazir Ahmed Thakur were dismissed and the judgment of the Single Judge was upheld.
Follow our WhatsApp channel