Chief Justice dismissed the writ petition challenging an order deploying petitioners to different units of the Corporation. The Court held routine deployment does not violate rights, though the dismissal did not decide promotion rights.
Writ petition dismissed. Caveat discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S. No. 134 Before Notice (S)
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) no. 1571/2021 CM no. 5292/2021 c/w Caveat no. 1116/2021
Altaf Hussain Gojri and others
…. Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr Sheikh Mushtaq, Advocate V/s
Union Territory of JK and others
… Respondent(s) Through: Mr Altaf Haqani, Sr. Advocate with Mr Shakir Haqani, Advocate
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge
ORDER
12.08.2021
Heard Mr Sheikh Mushtaq, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr Altaf Haqani, learned Senior Counsel for the caveators.
Caveat no. 1116/2021 is discharged .
In terms of the order No. JKSRTC/GMA/Ec-IV/302 dated 05.08.2021, hereinafter for short impugned order, the petitioners have been deployed at various units of the Corporation for duties. The order impugned is challenged on the ground that the same is in violation of the Court order dated 19.11.2019 passed by this Court in WP (C) no. 3352/2019 whereby this court, while issuing notice to the other side, had, in the meanwhile, directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue as they were continuing before passing of the order dated 11th October, 2019, in terms whereof the petitioners were relieved from the post of Clerk and deployed at different places as Conductors with the buses.
The second ground of challenge has reference to the impugned order being irrational as it is issued without the consent of the General Manager Operations who is the controlling authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Harshit Agarwal and others v. Union of India and others reported as (2021) 2 SCC 710.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order has
the effect of depriving the petitioners from promotion to the next higher post which AMJAD AHMAD LONE 2021.08.12 16:30 is already a subject matter in the Writ Petition, WP (C) no. 3352/2019. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
On the other hand Mr Altaf Haqani, learned senior counsel for the respondent Corporation, submits that the impugned order is quite in tune with the scheme of rules and is issued by the Competent Authority. He submits that there is no requirement of the consent to be sought from the General Manager Operations for issuance of the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioners have been deployed to various places commensurating to their position and status and the order impugned is not violating any of the rights of the petitioners which could form a ground to challenge the same.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
On consideration of the matter, the court is of the considered view that mere deployment of the petitioners from one place to another place does not amount to violation of any right guaranteed either by the Rules or the Constitution. In terms of the impugned order the respondents have only made a routine deployment without disturbing the status or position of any of the employees. In that view of the matter the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order impugned is in violation of the order dated 19.11.2019 passed by this court in WP (C) no. 3352/2019 and it has the effect of depriving the petitioners from further promotions, do not hold ground and are accordingly rejected. However, notwithstanding the said observation, if the petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order, the remedy is not to file a writ petition. The contention that the order impugned is irrational as it is without the consent of the General Manager Operations, is also rejected being without any substance.
In view of above, the writ petition is held to be without any merit, therefore, dismissed along with all CMs at its threshold. However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinbefore shall not have the effect of deciding the rights of the petitioners’ vis-à-vis their promotional aspects. The observations made and findings recorded are strictly confined to the impugned order and shall not have any effect over the rights of the petitioners for seeking further promotions to which they may be entitled to in terms of the applicable rules.
(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge
Srinagar 12.08.2021 Amjad Lone PS
AMJAD AHMAD LONE 2021.08.12 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether deploying petitioners to different units violates court order WP (C) no. 3352/2019.
Whether deployment without GM Operations consent renders order irrational.
Whether deployment deprives petitioners of promotion rights.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harshit Agarwal and others v. Union of India and othersReferred¶16
Harshit Agarwal and others v. Union of India and others (2021) 2 SCC 710 · Who else cites this
WP (C) no. 3352/2019Referred¶15
WP (C) no. 3352/2019
Altaf Hussain Gojri and others
Union Territory of JK and others
Ali Mohammad Magrey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
