Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 10: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has come down heavily on the J&K Entrepreneurship Development Institute (JKEDI) for misleading the court by presenting “factually incorrect and fabricated” facts in a recruitment case and directed the Institute to appoint the next eligible candidate against the post of Communication Officer which had remained vacant since 2017.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, while delivering judgment in a petition filed by Hakeem Abid Mubarak of Kulgam, observed that the Institute’s claim that the selected candidate, Mohsin Qadir Wani, had joined and resigned was “misleading and unsupported by record.” The High Court held that official correspondence on file clearly showed that the selected candidate never joined the post, having formally communicated his inability to join the Institute on November 21, 2017.
“The plea of the respondent-Institute that the selected candidate joined and later resigned is found factually incorrect. The post, having remained vacant, was required to be filled by the next meritorious candidate in the order of merit,” the High Court said in a strongly worded order.
The High Court further observed that the Institute’s reliance on an internal order dated November 20, 2017, citing reduction of posts under the “Mission Strategy and Action Plan 2030,” was an attempt to mislead. “A closer examination of the order shows it was only a placement document of staff and not a reduction order. The Institute has opposed the petitioner’s claim by wrongly placing reliance on the said order,” Justice Wani noted.
Rejecting the Institute’s plea that it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction, the High Court reaffirmed that JKEDI falls within the ambit of Article 226, citing the Coordinate Bench ruling in Raheela Nazir Vs J&K EDI (2022).
Holding that the petitioner was next in merit and the only claimant for the post after the selected candidate’s non-joining, the High Court ruled in his favour and directed the JKEDI to offer appointment to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits.
“The petitioner alone having sought appointment against the post, and no other candidate having raised any claim, a case for indulgence is clearly carved out in his favour,” Justice Wani concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
