STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a LPA filed by Anil John challenging the induction of Ajay Khajuria in KAS, a Division Bench of State High Court comprising First Puisne Judge Justice Sudhakar Ramalingam and Justice B.S. Walia after hearing both the sides in length observed that “we find no justification for the appellant-writ petitioner to re-agitate the matter when the above said directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge on the issue raised. Nevertheless, we find that Amar Singh who was one of the writ petitioner in the batch of writ petitions’ and a beneficiary of selection grade also filed an appeal and restricted his plea for placing him above respondent No. 10- Ajay Khajuria. The Division Bench of this Court after going through various Govt. orders summarized three issues, which are as Whether the appointment of respondent No. 10 as Assistant Director w.e.f 29.05.1984 is illegal and contrary to the rules; Whether the appellant is senior to respondent No. 10 in the service; What relief can be granted to the petitioner/appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
On issue No. 1 the Division Bench held that the appointment of respondent No. 10 as Assistant Director w.e.f 29.05.1984 cannot be said to be impermissible, illegal or contrary to rules. Issue No. 2 was decided against the said Amar Singh and in favour of respondent No. 10-Ajay Khajuria. So far as issue No. 3 is concerned, the Division Bench held that “A conjoint reading of the aforesaid rules makes it clear that for induction of Kashmir Administrative Service, the seniority of a person has limited rule i.e. to bring a person within the zone of consideration, thereafter the seniority has no rule to play as for the selection of the eligible persons within the zone of consideration is concerned. It is admitted case of the parties that in the year 1997, the appellant as also respondent No. 10 both were eligible and within the zone of consideration and both were considered for induction to KAS. Respondent No. 10 came to be inducted on the basis of better grading of his APRs, whereas the petitioner/appellant remained un-successful on assessment of the comparative merit of both these officials by the selection committee. The petitioner /appellant having assailed the induction of respondent No. 10 and failed in his attempt is not entitled to claim any relief against respondent No. 10, who has already entered in a higher category and presently belongs to a different service on induction. The issue of inter-se seniority of petitioner/appellant and respondent No. 10 has been rendered otiose as both of them now belong to different services and the inter-se seniority has relevance only if they belong to the same cadre of service. The induction of respondent No. 10 is a fail accompli and cannot be re-opened in the present proceedings. In view of detailed discussion, We are of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner/appellant in the present appeal.”
