Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mir Sajad Hussain (Aged: 41 Years) S/O vs Union Territory Of J&K Through … on 22 August, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2025:JKLHC-SGR:225-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 19.08.2025
Pronounced on:22.08.2025
CJ Court
WP(C) No.3372/2023
1. Mir Sajad Hussain (aged: 41 years) s/o
Ghulam Mohideen Mir R/o Pandrethan,
Srinagar Kashmir.
2. Ruby Jan (aged: 37 years) D/o Ghulam
Nabi Bhat R/o Nowbugh, Anantnag,
Kashmir.
3. Arif Ahmad Bhat (aged: 32 years) S/o
Ghulam Rasool Bhat R/o Pinglena,
Pulwama, Kashmir.
...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Shuja-ul-Haq, Advocate.
Vs.
1. Union Territory of J&K through Principal
Secretary to Govt. Industries & Commerce
Department, Civil Secretariat,
Srinagar/Jammu.
2. Director, Handicrafts & Handloom, J&K
Government, Kashmir Srinagar.
3. Assistant Director, Handicrafts, Baramulla.
4. Assistant Director, Handicrafts, Kulgam.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Waseem Gul, GA, with
Ms. Shaila Shameem, Assisting Counsel.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
OSWAL ‘J’
1) The petitioners claim to have been appointed as
Assistant Handicrafts Training Officers initially on a
probation period of two years vide order dated 26.04.2018
WP(C) No.3372/2023 1|Page
2025:JKLHC-SGR:225-DB
issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner No.1 and 3 were
posted in District Baramulla whereas petitioner No.2 was
posted in District Kulgam. However, vide order dated
24.12.2020 followed by communication dated 11.01.2021
issued by respondent No.2, the appointment of the petitioners
was cancelled ab initio and process for recovery of illegally
drawn amount on account of salary/other emoluments by the
petitioners was directed to be initiated by respondent No.3
and 4.
2) The petitioners being aggrieved of the order and
communication (supra) assailed the same before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench (for short “the
Tribunal”) through the medium of OA No.220 of 2021, on the
grounds that the orders impugned were issued by the
respondents in utter violation of principles of natural justice.
3) The claim of the petitioners was objected to by the
respondents by submitting that the petitioners were
appointed to the post of Assistant Handicrafts Training Officer
on fake and fabricated letter as their names were never
recommended by the Service Selection Board in the main list
by which the names of the selected candidates were
recommended to the department vide order dated
26.04.2017. The names of the petitioners were neither
figuring in the select list nor in the waiting list but
WP(C) No.3372/2023 2|Page
2025:JKLHC-SGR:225-DB
subsequently fake letter of recommendation was issued, on
the basis of which the petitioners came to be appointed. An
FIR bearing No.29/2021 stands already registered and the
matter is pending before the court of competent criminal
jurisdiction.
4) The learned Tribunal vide order dated 25.08.2023
dismissed the OA preferred by the petitioners by returning a
finding that the petitioners were in service on the basis forged
documents and their appointment was non-est right from the
very beginning.
5) Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 25.08.2023
passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners have assailed
the same through the medium of instant petition on the
identical grounds as were urged before the learned Tribunal.
The respondents in their response reiterated their stand by
stating that the Additional Commissioner, Kashmir (the then
Secretary SSB, J&K) vide his letter dated 04.12.2020, while
requesting for lodging of FIR with the Crime Branch, had
revealed that the selection list dated 15.03.2018 was
forwarded to the Industries and Commerce Department with
his fake signatures and, accordingly, FIR No.29/2021 was
registered with Crime Branch, Kashmir, under Section 420,
468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. It was further stated that the Administrative
WP(C) No.3372/2023 3|Page
2025:JKLHC-SGR:225-DB
Department vide letter dated 23.12.2020 authorized the
Directorate of Handicrafts, Kashmir, to cancel ab initio the
appointment orders of the petitioners and, accordingly, vide
order dated 24.12.2020, the appointment orders of the
petitioners were cancelled ab initio. Vide communication
dated 11.01.2021, Assistant Director, Kulgam/Baramulla
were directed to initiate the process of recovery of illegally
drawn amount on account of salary/other emoluments by the
petitioners during their tenure as Assistant Handicrafts
Training Officers and remit the same into the Government
Treasury.
6) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
the petitioners have been condemned unheard but the
learned Tribunal has not rightly appreciated the contention of
the petitioners.
7) Mr. Waseem Gull, learned GA, has submitted that the
petitioners had secured appointment on the basis of fake
select list, as such, their appointment was void ab initio, and,
as such, was rightly cancelled by the respondents
8) Heard and perused the record.
9) The petitioners have neither been able to demonstrate
before the Tribunal nor before this Court that the select list
pursuant to which they secured appointment was not forged.
WP(C) No.3372/2023 4|Page
2025:JKLHC-SGR:225-DB
The record depicts that FIR No.29/2021 under Section 420,
468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, was registered with Crime Branch, Kashmir,
in which challan has also been filed against them. It is also
not rebutted by the petitioners that the select list allegedly
issued by the Service Selection Board recommending their
names for appointment for Kashmir Division, wherein item
number was mentioned as 52, was, in fact for Jammu
Division. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the
petitioners had secured appointment on the basis of fake and
forged select list.
10) Now the only issued that is required to be considered is
as to whether the petitioners were required to be afforded any
opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned orders or
not.
11) We are of the considered view that when the
appointment is obtained on the basis of fake/forged select
list/appointment letter, no opportunity of hearing is required
to be afforded to the delinquent employee and in such cases,
no relationship of employer and employee exists as the
appointment of such a delinquent employee is illegal from the
very inception. In this context, it would be advantageous to
take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘State of
WP(C) No.3372/2023 5|Page
2025:JKLHC-SGR:225-DB
Manipur v. Y. Token Singh, (2007) 5 SCC 65’ wherein it has been observed
and held as under:
16. The offers of appointment issued in favour of the
respondents herein were cancelled inter alia on the
premise that the same had been done without the
knowledge of the Revenue Department of the State. No
records therefor were available with the State. As
noticed hereinbefore, an inquiry had been made
wherein the said Shri Tayeng, the then Commissioner of
Revenue stated that no such appointment had been
made to his knowledge. The State proceeded on the
said basis. The offers of appointment were cancelled
not on the ground that some irregularities had been
committed in the process of recruitment but on the
ground that they had been non est in the eye of the law.
The purported appointment letters were fake ones.
They were not issued by any authority competent
therefor.
17. If the offers of appointments issued in favour of the
respondents herein were forged documents, the State
could not have been compelled to pay salaries to them
from the State exchequer. Any action, which had not
been taken by an authority competent therefor and in
complete violation of the constitutional and legal
framework, would not be binding on the State. In any
event, having regard to the fact that the said authority
himself had denied to have issued a letter, there was no
reason for the State not to act pursuant thereto or in
furtherance thereof. The action of the State did not,
thus, lack bona fides.
18. Moreover, it was for the respondents who had filed
the writ petitions to prove existence of legal right in
their favour. They had inter alia prayed for issuance of
a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. It was, thus, for
them to establish existence of a legal right in their
favour and a corresponding legal duty in the
respondents to continue to be employed. With a view
to establish their legal rights to enable the High Court to
issue a writ of mandamus, the respondents were
obligated to establish that the appointments had been
made upon following the constitutional mandate
adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. They have not been able to show that any
advertisement had been issued inviting applications
from eligible candidates to fill up the said posts. It has
also not been shown that the vacancies had been notified
to the employment exchange.
WP(C) No.3372/2023 6|Page
2025:JKLHC-SGR:225-DB
22. The respondents, therefore, in our opinion, were
not entitled to hold the posts. In a case of this nature,
where the facts are admitted, the principles of natural
justice were not required to be complied with,
particularly when the same would result in futility—–.
(emphasis added)
12) The same position has been reiterated in State of Bihar
vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad, (2019) 13 SCC 250, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the appointment is
illegal from its inception, such employee is not entitled to
protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. Paras 16 and
17 of the said judgment are reproduced as under:
16. In State of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty,
(2011) 3 SCC 436, this Court has held that once an order
of appointment itself had been bad at the time of initial
appointment, it cannot be sanctified at a later stage. It
was held thus:
“68(i) The procedure prescribed under the 1974
Rules has not been followed in all the cases while
making the appointment of the respondents/
teachers at initial stage. Some of the persons had
admittedly been appointed merely by putting
some note on the notice board of the College.
Some of these teachers did not face the interview
test before the Selection Board. Once an order of
appointment itself had been bad at the time of
initial appointment, it cannot be sanctified at a
later stage”. (Emphasis supplied)
17. In the instant cases the writ petitioners have filed the
petitions before the High Court with a specific prayer to
regularize their service and to set aside the order of
termination of their services. They have also challenged
the report submitted by the State Committee. The real
controversy is whether the writ petitioners were legally
and validly appointed. The finding of the State
Committee is that many writ petitioners had secured
appointment by producing fake or forged appointment
letter or had been inducted in Government service
surreptitiously by concerned Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief
Medical Officer by issuing a posting order. The writ
petitioners are the beneficiaries of illegal orders made
by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer. They
were given notice to establish the genuineness of their
WP(C) No.3372/2023 7|Page
2025:JKLHC-SGR:225-DBappointment and to show cause. None of them could
establish the genuineness or legality of their
appointment before the State Committee. The State
Committee on appreciation of the materials on record
has opined that their appointment was illegal and void
ab initio. We do not find any ground to disagree with the
finding of the State Committee. In the circumstances,
the question of regularisation of their services by
invoking para 53 of the judgment in Umadevi (supra)
does not arise. Since the appointment of the petitioners
is ab initio void, they cannot be said to be the civil
servants of the State. Therefore, holding disciplinary
proceedings envisaged by Article 311 of the
Constitution or under any other disciplinary rules shall
not arise.
13) We have examined the judgment passed by the learned
Tribunal, which stands the test of judicial scrutiny and we do
not find any reason to show indulgence. Accordingly, the
present petition is dismissed along with connected
applications, being bereft of any merit. Interim direction, if
any, shall cease to be in operation.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Srinagar
22.08.2025
"Bhat Altaf"
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: No
WP(C) No.3372/2023 8|Page