Ganesh Kumar And Others vs Era Sharma And Others

Appellants are aggrieved of the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 765/2018, whereby it has been directed that the private respondent Nos. 3 to 6 (who are appellants herein) shall be considered for appointment only in their respective categories and not in the open merit category.

Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 vide Advertisement Notification No. 15-PSC(DR-P) of 2013 dated 12.08.2013 invited applications from eligible candidates for selection to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electric) in the Power Development Department of Jammu and Kashmir. 44 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electric) were advertised for the following categories:-

Open Merit : 25

RBA : 09

SC : 03

ST : 04

ALC : 02

SLC : 01

Total : 44

Appellants along with respondent No. 1 appeared for interview and final select list was issued by respondent No. 3 vide Notification No. 15-PSC (DR-S) of 2018 dated 03.04.2018 and they were selected in different categories, but the name of respondent No. 1 did not figure in the said list. Aggrieved of the select list, she filed the writ petition being SWP No. 765/2018 and in the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order.

Appellants' grievance is that the order impugned was passed without giving them opportunity of being heard as they were on caveat. In the appeal it is stated by them that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 filed caveat on 06.04.2018, but at the time when the writ petition SWP No. 765/2018 was taken up for hearing, the said caveat was not attached with the writ petition and thus the appellants were deprived of being given an opportunity of being heard.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that had the appellants been given opportunity of being heard, the learned Single Judge would not have passed the order impugned dated 27.04.2018. It is further submitted that the appellants were selected in the open merit category in view of their securing more merit than the candidates selected in open merit category.

This Court vide order dated 09.05.2018 stayed operation of the impugned order dated 27.04.2018, insofar as, it directed that the appellants shall be considered for appointment only in their respective categories and not in the open merit category.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the file.

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellants had filed caveat before filing of the writ petition, in which the order impugned has been passed. Since they had filed the caveat, therefore, they had right of being heard in the stay matter, which has been denied to them. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the order impugned has been stayed and the order of stay is still in operation.

We, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, deem it fit and appropriate to dispose of this Letters Patent Appeal by setting aside the order impugned dated 27.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 765/2018 and remand the matter back to the writ court for hearing afresh and pass fresh orders for grant of interim relief.

Ordered accordingly.

It is stated that the writ petition SWP No. 765/2018 has been tagged with SWP No. 2369/2017. Registry is directed to list SWP No. 765/2018 along with SWP No. 2369/2017 on 06.08.2020.