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