Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, May 1: The High Court has dismissed a batch of appeals seeking quashing of appointment of Naib Tehsildars (NTs), appointed way back in 2015 in terms of writ court judgment, citing that the appeals have been filed at the belated stage and upheld the appointment as also the seniority of Naib Tehsildars.
The eleven appeals came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice V C Koul challenging the writ court judgment passed in 2015 whereby the Government was directed to consider and appoint the petitioner-candidates on the posts of Naib Tehsildars against the vacancies which stand already reserved in terms of the Court Orders and issue appointment orders in this behalf within four weeks in their favour.
It was also made clear by the court that in case of those petitioner-candidates who might have crossed the upper age limit for entering into Government services, it shall be deemed that relaxation is granted in the upper age limit.
It is in terms of order No. FC(A) 200 of 2013 dated 8th of October, 2013, that a final seniority list of Naib Tehsildars of the State Cadre of Revenue Department, was issued by the Government. Thereafter, vide order No. FC(A) 158 of 2019 dated 15th of May, 2019, another final seniority list of Naib Tehsildars of State Cadre of the Revenue Department came to be issued, wherein various NTs have been shown over and above the appellants by declaring them to have been appointed as Naib Tehsildars w.e.f. 20th of November, 2009 on notional basis.
Appellants aggrieved of the said action on behalf of the authorities for issuing second seniority list submit that it was not circulated by the official as a result whereof they did not gain any knowledge about the same.
They added that on 20th of December, 2019, notification bearing No. FC(A)39/Misc/2019 have been issued by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, wherein reference of the final seniority list issued vide order dated 15th of May, 2019 was given.
Explaining the delay of four years in approaching the court, the appellants contend that they came to know about the passing of the judgment only when the officials issued notification dated 20th of December, 2019 regarding final seniority list, which notification was obtained by them in the month of February, 2020, thus the time of limitation would run from February, 2020, when for the first time they gained the knowledge of existence of impugned judgment and thereafter, in the month of March, 2020 a nationwide lockdown was ordered by the Government of India as a preventive measure against the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic which was, thereafter, extended from time to time.
Opposing all the appeals, Government advocate submitted before the bench that the authorities issued a tentative seniority list of Naib Tehsildars on 28th of August, 2017, wherein it was specifically mentioned that 23 Naib Tehsildars, have been appointed in compliance of the judgment of writ court and that their seniority, too, was fixed over and above the appellants on the directions of the judgment.
He added that the tentative seniority list was given wide publicity through print media, besides the same was also uploaded on the official website of the Department. Therefore, the claim of the appellants that they came to know about the passing of the judgment only when the official issued notification dated 20th of December, 2019 regarding final seniority list is baseless.
“It cannot be disputed that the Law of Limitation has to be applied with all its vigour and rigor as prescribed by the Statute. One cannot escape the consequences of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which provides that for the extension of the period of limitation in a given case, the condition precedent is that the appellants have to satisfy the Court that they have carved out a sufficient cause in seeking the indulgence of the Court for not preferring the appeal or application within the stipulated time”, the DB said.
“The Courts cannot come to the aid and rescue of such litigants where the application for condonation of delay does not spell out sufficient cause and the approach of the applicants/ appellants, in making such application, is casual and cryptic. The applicants/ appellants have been remiss and callous in seeking the condonation of delay in filing the appeals”, the DB recorded and dismissed all the 11 Appeals (LPAs) as barred by time.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
