AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Kumar, C.J.â€"The State of Jammu and Kashmir and its officers are in appeal against the judgment and order dated 02.06.1998 rendered
by the learned Writ Court. It has been held that the impugned order dated 12.06.1993 passed by the Assistant Director Physical Education
relieving the petitioner-respondent had violated the interim order of status quo passed by the Writ Court on 19.10.1990, which was then in
operation. According to the relieving order, the petitioner-respondent was directed to report back to Divisional Youth Services and Sports
Officer, Jammu. Facts in brief are that the petitioner-respondent was temporarily promoted as Lady Sports Officer vide order dated 14.10.1981
issued by the Director, Youth Services, which was subject to formal clearance by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Departmental
Promotion Committee did not clear her name for promotion and one Smt. Swam Lata Wazir, private respondent was promoted to the post of
Lady Sports Officer vide order dated 30.07.1990. The petitioner-respondent challenged that order by stating that she stood already promoted on
the post and was working since 1981 and therefore the private respondent could not have been promoted when no vacancy was available. Before
the Writ Court the claim against the private respondent was dropped and the attack was confined to the illegal order dated 12.06.1993 passed by
the Assistant Director, Physical Education directing her to report back to Divisional Youth Services and Sports Officer, Jammu.
The Writ Court found that the relieving order dated 12.06.1993 had violated the interim order dated 19.10.1990, which directed the parties to
maintain status quo. The aforesaid order as confirmed on 06.03.1991 reads as under:--
The petition is admitted to hearing. Issue fresh notice to the respondents. M/s. H. Rehman, J.S. Kotwal accept notice. They shall file detailed
counter within four week with advance copy to the learned counsel for the otherside who will have right to file rejoinder within two week
thereafter. Right of the defaulting parties deemed to be closed without any further reference to the bench. In view of the circumstance of the case, it
is required to be listed for hearing at an early date. Therefore, list the case for hearing in the week commencing from 22.4.1991. Meanwhile status
of the petitioner shall not be changed.
The Writ Court further held that the order of status quo must be given its full effect and relieving order dated 12.06.1993 must be ignored.
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of holding that the relieving order dated 12 06 1993 contravened the interim orders passed by this Court
on 19 10 1990 and 06.03.1991. As the petitioner-respondent refused to obey the relieving order the Writ Court further held that her refusal was
not to be construed as an unauthorized absence because her status could not have been changed and she was not expected to join on any inferior
post alter holding the post of Lady Sports Officer from 1981. For all these years she had earned the service benefit by crossing efficiency bar and
earning increments etc. However, liberty has been granted to the Director, Youth Welfare to decide the period from the date she was relieved in
contravention of the Court order within a period of two months.
Feeling aggrieved, the State of Jammu and Kashmir has filed the instant appeal.
We have heard the learned State counsel at some length and are of the view that once the illegal order was found to contravene the interim
orders of this Court dated 19.10.1990 and 06.03.1991 then the relieving order was liable to be ignored. It is also conceded as a fact that the writ
petitioner-respondent held the post of Lady Sports Officer since 1981 albeit on temporary basis and her status was required to be protected. The
Writ Court has rightly observed that the petitioner-respondent was allowed to cross the efficiency bar and has issued direction to the Director,
Youth Welfare to decide the period from the date she was relieved in violation of interim orders. He was to decide the issue within a period of two
months. A perusal of the record shows that there was a stay order passed on 07.12.1999 and naturally no order of consideration has been
passed. Even otherwise, the matter is more than 14 years old. The Director, Youth Services shall now take up the issue with regard to the period
from the date the Petitioner-respondent was relieved violating the interim orders and re-instated. The needful shall be done within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appeal along with accompanying application(s) is disposed of in above terms.