Srinagar: The High Court on Friday dismissed a contempt petition pertaining to recruitment of Assistant Information Officer Grade-II advertised in 2006-08 and 10.
Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Javed Iqbal Wani while dismissing the petition said the recruiting agency — Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (SSB) — cannot be said to have done wilful disobedience of its order in view of the “policy decision” by the Administrative Council in 2022.
The division bench said, “the policy decision taken by the Administration, vide Decision No.1/1/2022 dated 29.01.2022 is to the effect that all posts referred to JKPSC/JKSSB prior to 31.10.2019, for which selections have not been finalized till date, as also the posts in which there are litigations and the cases are pending in the courts, shall be deemed to have been withdrawn with immediate effect.”
It held that in the present case, though the direction of the court was to finalize the process of selection, yet the fact remains that selection was not finalized when the policy decision was taken by the Administration on 29.01.2022.
“In the present case, even if, by virtue of the order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the Division Bench, the selection authority is under legal obligation to finalize the process of selection, yet since the finalization could not be accomplished before 29.01.2022 and even if the petitioners have a vested right to claim that process of selection be finalized in terms of the direction of the Division Bench dated 10.05.2013, they could not claim more than that” said the bench.
It ordered that since court cases were still pending, the bar imposed by the Administrative Council vide their decision on 29 January 2022 will come into operation.
The court observed that selection and appointment are two different and distinct parts of a recruitment process which do not necessarily have to go together.
It said, “there is no inevitability of appointment merely because a person has been selected for appointment by being included in the select list,” the court said, adding, “since, in the present case, there was no direction of the Division Bench to appoint the selected candidates, it cannot be said that petitioners have a vested right of appointment.”
If the administrative decision was taken specifically to nullify the effect of a judicial order in a particular case, certainly it will amount to violation of the court order, the court said.
However, in the present case, what is worth considering is that the administrative decision taken on 29.01.2022 was not with regard to a particular case or with specific reference to the order dated 10.05.2013 but was of a general nature which was applicable to all those cases, the court said.
The bench was of the view that the said policy decision taken was certainly not keeping in mind specifically the present case. “As such, we are of the view that it was not done intentionally or deliberately to nullify the effect of the order of the court.”
