'Smacks Of Favouritism': J&K&L High Court Pulls Up State For Appointing 'Ineligible Person' As Director Of Family Welfare

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the Government cannot bypass eligible officers within the Health & Family Welfare (Gazetted) Service to give temporary charge of the post of Director, Family Welfare, MCH & Immunization to an officer belonging to an entirely different service, particularly when the service rules prescribe no such mode of appointment.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed a petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision upholding the Government's appointment of another officer to the post.

The court observed that "If for some reasons… the working of the office… is required to be carried out by giving temporary charge to an ineligible person, it would be in the fitness of things to pick up such person from within the service.”

The court so while acknowledging the Government's difficulty in finding an eligible candidate, attributed to the failure to convene DPC/PSC meetings regularly.

The court said that ordinarily, an ineligible officer cannot challenge the appointment of another ineligible officer. However, the Court clarified that where one ineligible officer is ignored in favour of another without a reasonable basis, the aggrieved officer can approach the Court to question such exclusion.

Referring to Rule 3(1) and Rule 5(2) of the J&K Health & Family Welfare (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013, the Court observed that appointment to the post can only be by direct recruitment, promotion, or a combination thereof in the prescribed ratio.

Appointment by transfer is not contemplated, nor do the rules provide for relaxation of prescribed qualifications or modes of recruitment.

The Bench noted that there were senior officers, including the respondent holding the post of ADMO Labour/Deputy Director (Schemes) since 2023, with decades of relevant experience. Ignoring them and bringing in an officer from the Department of Medical Education, the Court said, “smacks of favouritism.

Finding no merit in the challenge and concurring with the Tribunal's reasoning, the Court dismissed the petition in limine.

APPEARANCE:

Case-Title: Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad Rather vs Poonam Sethi & Anr, 2025

Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Advocate, Adv. Ahtsham Hussain for Petitioner

Sunil Sethi Sr. Advocate, adv. Kunal Saini, Raman Sharma AAG for Respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order