Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Shahbaz Qayoom And Others vs Ut Of Jk And Others on 15 January, 2025
S. No. 31
Suppl Cause List
INTHE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) no. 100/2025
CM no. 223/2025
Shahbaz Qayoom and others
...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. A. M. Dar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Danish Majid, Advocate & Ms. Ahra Syed, Adv.
Vs.
UT of JK and others
...Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI-JUDGE
ORDER
15.01.2025
1. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under the provisions
of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seek
issuance of writ/direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents
to appoint petitioners in place of the original selectees who have duly
nominated them and render a time bound decision on their pending
representation dated 03.01.2025.
The facts of the petitioners’ case in nutshell are that the NHPC
Uri-II for its establishment necessitated the acquisition of land
from numerous local families and NHPC undertook to offer at
least one employment opportunity to each displaced family as a
measure of rehabilitation. That however, following interviews
and the publication of the initial selection list, various legal
challenges ensued, culminating in multiple writ petitions (SWP
nos. 1928/2015, 1798/2018 and 1819/2015).
That filing of these petitions resulted in an interim stay that
persisted for almost nine years, causing severe delays that
rendered many original selectees ineligible, over-aged, or
otherwise incapacitated.
2
WP(C) no. 100/2025
CM no. 223/2025
That eventually, on 04.07.2024, this Court dismissed the
aforementioned petitions, thereby lifting the long-standing stay
and allowing the recruitment to progress. That some
unsuccessful candidates then pursued Letters Patent Appeals
(LPA no. 210 of 2024), but the Division Bench of this Court
declined to grant any further interim relief. That NHPC, by
issuing a notice on 09.09.2024, sought to finalize appointments
for the originally selected candidates, including those who had
by then nominated the petitioners in their place due to reasons
such as advanced age, ill health, or pre-existing employment.
That despite the petitioners’ compliance with all required
verification procedures, further legal challenges arose, resulting
in renewed delays and selective issuance of appointment orders
only to a few original selectees.
That aggrieved by this arbitrariness and lack of decisiveness, the
petitioners, along with others, filed WP(C) no. 2919/2024,
prompting this Court on 13.12.2024 to direct the respondents to
consider the petitioners’ representation dated 25.11.2024 and
conclude the recruitment process within three months. That
although NHPC ostensibly resumed the appointment exercise in
early 2025, the petitioners’ specific claims were again
overlooked. That though the original selectees had unequivocally
nominated the petitioners through sworn affidavits, yet NHPC
persisted with the stance that certain selectees remained
technically eligible, disregarding their practical inability to join
due to age, illness, or alternate employment. That consequently,
the petitioners submitted a fresh representation dated
03.01.2025, highlighting these nuances and urging an expedient
resolution. That, however, their pleas have met with no
conclusive response, compelling them to file the present writ
petition.
That petitioners now assert that the respondents refusal or failure
to appoint them, even after acknowledging their nomination,
amounts to an arbitrary denial of rights protected under Articles
3
WP(C) no. 100/2025
CM no. 223/2025
14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. That the respondents’ conduct
further breaches principles of legitimate expectation, promissory
estoppel and fair ply in administrative action, thus defeating the
entire objective of rehabilitating land oustees by ensuring “one
job per displaced family”. That in the face of continuing inaction,
the petitioners have no adequate or efficacious remedy other than
invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Through this petition, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to
compel the respondents to appoint them forthwith in place of the
original selectees who have duly nominated them, and to render
a time bound decision on their pending representation dated
03.01.2025, so as to uphold the letter and spirit of the land
oustees policy.
2. I have heard the preliminary submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioners Mr. A. M. Dar, learned Senior Advocate, who submitted that
the instant writ petition can be disposed of at this threshold stage by
directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners in place of the
original selectees who have duly nominated them and to render a time
bound decision of their pending representation dated 03.01.2025, so as
to uphold the letter and spirit of the land oustee policy.
3. In the backdrop, instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the respondents that they shall subject to any contrary orders of this
Court, actively consider the appointment of the petitioners in place of
the original selectees who have duly nominated them owing to the fact
of their having been rendered incapacitated for active services due to
their death or reaching near the age of superannuation.
Disposed of as along with the connected CM.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
15.01.2025
“Imtiyaz”
Imtiyaz Ul Gani
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
18.01.2025 14:52