Dr Shahid Amin Malla vs HEALTH SERVICES on 31 December 2025

ORDER

(Oral)

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.):- Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:

a. Declare the action of the Respondents in not permitting the Applicant to join the post of

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

Registrar at Government Medical College, Srinagar, despite his valid selection pursuant to Notification No. 3-EC of 2025 dated 12.03.2025, as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

b. Direct the Respondents to forthwith permit the Applicant to join the post of Registrar at Government Medical College, Srinagar, pursuant to his selection, without being prejudiced by the mere pendency of a criminal case, subject to its final outcome;

c. Direct the Respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order in respect of the Applicant's candidature, if any adverse decision is proposed, after affording the Applicant an opportunity of hearing;

d. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2. What stems out of the pleadings made in the O.A. are that the applicant was selected as a Registrar at the Govt. Medical College, Srinagar, in terms of the notification bearing no. 3-EC of 2025 dated 12.03.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ahmad Javid, submits that the applicant’s name as such figures at serial no. 1265-Med of the list, which is annexed at page 27 of the O.A. He submits that the applicant, however, was not allowed to join for reasons beast known to the respondents, which necessitated the applicant to file a detailed representation before the competent authority which

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

was received by the competent authority on 27.05.2025 vide no. 5829465/CRU which is part of the O.A. He further submits that despite representation having been filed, the same has not been disposed of by the competent authority.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Syed Musaib, DAG, submits that even otherwise selection does not confer a vested right of appointment upon the applicant. But at the same time, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the at the very least, the respondents ought to have disposed of the representation filed by the applicant which has been unnecessarily kept pending, and as such, the non-disposal of the representation has given rise to filing of the instant O.A.

5. True it is that had the respondents disposed of the representation filed by the applicant timely, the applicant would have come to know as regards the reason for his non- consideration. The respondents, being the first responder, ought to have timely responded to the representation filed by the applicant, so that the grievances of the applicant would have been given an ear. However, the same would not mean that the representation shall be decided in favour of the applicant.

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

7. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the instant O.A. is taken up for its disposal.

8. The O.A. is disposed of by providing that the respondents shall consider and dispose of the representation filed by the applicant within three weeks positively by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. It is made clear that three weeks would be the outer limit for disposing of the representation. The applicant be accordingly conveyed the disposal as such.

9. Accordingly, O.A./1502/2025 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.

10. No order as to costs.

(M.S. Latif) Member (Judl.) Abhishek Punia Court Master 31.12.2025

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA