High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 02 J&K CK 0069

Narinder Paul Singh vs UT Of J&K & Ors

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 21 February 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tashi Rabstan, J · Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Latters Patent Appeal No. 75 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 327 words
1.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.05.2022 delivered by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1205/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner.

2.

The facts-in-brief are that pursuant to advertisement notice dated 29.08.2015 issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Power Development Corporation Limited inviting applications for appointment against various posts, the writ petitioner being eligible also applied for the post of Cost Accountant. The writ respondents, however, instead of going ahead with the process of selection of the advertised posts, withdrew the advertisement notice vide notice dated 12.10.2020. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed WP(C) No.1205/2021.

3.

The writ respondents had taken a stand before the learned Writ Court that the proposal for creation and advertisement of various posts was on the understanding that there would be massive expansion in the activities of the Corporation. Since no significant headway was made towards this objective of capacity addition, the Board of Directors in its 75th meeting held in August, 2020 had unanimously decided to withdraw the advertisement notification.

4.

The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 05.05.2022 dismissed the writ petition holding that merely by advertising the posts by the Corporation, no direction can be issued to finalize the selection process especially when the Corporation has already withdrawn the advertisement after the decision taken by the Board of Directors in its 75th meeting.

5.

After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are also of the opinion that no vested right accrues to a participant of the selection process for appointment against the advertised post, that too when the Corporation has already withdrawn the advertisement notification and has given a reasonable explanation in its reply filed before the Writ Court.

6.

Viewed thus, we are not inclined to take a view other than the one taken by the learned Single Judge and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected miscellaneous application(s), if any.