Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 4: Division Bench of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Rahul Bharti has dismissed the review petition filed by J&K Public Service Commission (JKPSC) against the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Jammu Bench in case titled “Dr Rajeev Gupta Versus State of J&K and Others”.
Vide its judgment dated February 3, 2022, the CAT, while allowing the petition filed by Dr Rajeev Gupta, set-aside selection of Dr Mohd Hussain Mir as Lecturer Super Specialty (Medical Oncology), Government Medical College and Hospital Jammu and simultaneously directed the JKPSC as well as J&K Government to consider the candidature of Dr Rajeev Gupta for the post of Lecturer.
Neither Dr Mohd Hussain Mir nor the Government challenged the judgment of the CAT. However, JKPSC through its Secretary knocked the doors of the High Court seeking quashment of judgment of CAT. However, the same was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated May 5, 2022 holding the lack of locus-standi of JKPSC to feel aggrieved of the judgment of CAT.
Against the judgment of May 5, 2022, the JKPSC filed review petition defending the selection of Dr Mohd Hussain Mir when he himself never felt aggrieved of upsetting of his selection by the judgment of CAT.
After hearing counsel for JKPSC, the DB observed, “the tone and tenor of the grounds of review petition is as if this court dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that institution of the writ petition was without any prior and proper decision the part of the petitioner-J&KPSC as a constitutional body to challenge the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal for carrying forward which the Secretary of the time had come forward with the institution of the writ petition”.
“Even in the review petition, there is no mention as to vide which minutes of meeting the so referred approval of the competent authority for filing the writ petition against judgment dated 03.02.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal was taken”, the DB said, adding “the communication dated 15.02.2022 by the Assistant Law Officer of JKPSC to the Standing Counsel for the petitioner could not be and cannot be taken by a constitutional court to be bearing the decision of a constitutional body to file a writ petition against an adjudication made in a selection related matter”.
“We find that under the guise of writ petition, the JKPSC in fact is seeking to re-agitate the matter forming subject matter of the writ petition”, the DB said, adding “we therefore hold the petition as misconceived and accordingly dismiss it”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
