Srinagar, Mar 10: Setting aside a single-judge verdict canceling all exams of Junior Engineer-civil, Jal Shakti Department, and Sub Inspector, Home Department conducted by J&K Service Selection Board (JKSSB) through a firm, Aptech Limited, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Friday remitted back a writ petition to single-bench with a “request” to decide the matter afresh.
Allowing the appeals of JKSSB and Aptech Limited challenging a single-bench verdict, a division bench comprising Justices, Tashi Rabstan and M.A Chowdhary ruled that Writ Court had no jurisdiction to finally dispose of the petition without first issuing notice and affording an opportunity to the opposite side for filing reply on merits of the case.
Restoring petition to its original number before writ court, the bench directed JKSSB and Aptech Limited to file objections/counter to the writ petition within two weeks from today, thereafter, rejoinder, if any, to be filed within next one week.
The court directed the Registry to list the writ petition before the single judge on April 5 when the single judge is requested to finally decide the writ petition.
“Till then interim direction dated December 09, 2022 shall remain in force,” the court said.
On December 9, last year, the division bench had stayed a single-judge verdict with a direction to the JKSSB to proceed with the selection process of Junior Engineer (JE), Jal Shakti Department and Sub-Inspector (SI), Home Department.
“However, the result of the same shall await further orders from this Court,” the bench had said.
JKSSB and Aptech challenged the judgment on the ground that the petition filed by the aspirants has been decided by the Writ Court in contravention to Rule 14 and 15 of J&K Writ Proceedings Rules, 1997 and the entire selection process to the post of JE, Jal Shakti Department and SI, Home Department, have been quashed.
The counsel representing the appellants submitted that in view of the provisions of Rules 14 (admission and listing of the writ petition) and 15, it was not open for the single judge to decide the petition finally unless initially the court had issued Rule Nisi (to show cause) to the other side.
The counsel contended that it is not permissible under the rule to dispose of a writ petition in favor of writ petitioners without allowing the contesting writ respondents to file reply to the writ petition.
Taking note of a single bench order, the bench pointed out that when the matter was listed before the single judge for the first time on November 30, 2022, no notice was issued by the single judge to the opposite party.
It noted that the writ respondents (JKSSB, Aptech Limited) through their counsel were appearing in the capacity of caveators and the single judge without recording the statements of counsel for writ respondents noted that the writ respondents do not intend to file reply to the writ petition, reserved the matter.
The bench pointed out that at no point of time counsel for writ respondents had made a statement that the writ respondents did not want to file a reply or that the matter be decided on the basis of record only, that too on the very first date of the listing of the writ petition.
The court recorded that order does not show whether the matter had been reserved for passing order on interim relief or for finally disposing of the writ petition.
“As such, we are of the view that the Writ Court had no jurisdiction to finally dispose of the petition without first issuing notice and affording an opportunity to the opposite side for filing reply on merits of the case,” the court held.
Adding, “Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, we, without discussing the merits of the case, deem it proper to dispose of the appeals and remit the writ petition back to the Writ Court for deciding the matter afresh.”
On December 08, last year, the single-judge bench while canceling the examinations of JE and SI had directed the government to constitute a high level Committee headed by not less than a retired High Court Judge to enquire into the conduct of JKSSB for their “brazen irregularities and illegalities” in changing the terms or conditions of the tender.
“Also as to what weighed with them to award a contract to conduct an examination by an organization which has previously facilitated malpractices in public examinations and accordingly appropriate action be initiated against those found guilty,” the court had asked.
The writ court had observed that by its own act of “omission and commission”, the functioning of JKSSB does not inspire confidence in holding public examinations.
“It has become incumbent on all stakeholders to review the functioning of the Board,” it had said.
The court had held that the conduct of public examination by the government or any instrumentality like JKSSB is a matter of trust and utmost faith and what impression can be gathered if such contract is given to a agency, which was blacklisted in the past, to conduct the selection process where career of lacks of aspirants are at stake.
Single-judge had recorded that a fair and reasonable selection process is a fundamental requirement under Article 14 and Article 16 (1) of the constitution.
The writ court had also highlighted the past actions of the firm, Aptech Limited while observing that the firm has already been involved in various malpractices and irregularities and was blacklisted by UPPCL.
