Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 234 (JK)

Dilshada v. State

2008-06-03

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2008
1. It appears that respondent No.3, Zonal Education Officer, Khansahib Budgam issued advertisement notice in March-2005 inviting application from eligible candidates for the engagement of as Education Volunteers for various habitations of Zone Khansahib, Budgam. Peer Mohalla Katich was one of habitation. The last date for submission of application forms was fixed as 10th of April 2005. Respondent No.5 came to be selected/ recommended vide select list dated 6th of October 2005. Petitioner was not figuring in the list, feeling aggrieved, questioned the selection of respondent No. 5 by the medium of the writ petition in hand. 2. Petitioner has averred in this writ petition that respondent No. 5 was ineligible for the simple reason that she had submitted the application in terms of advertisement notice for selection to the post of Education Volunteer after the cut off date i.e. 10th of April 2005 and without requisite certificate of PRC. Further it is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 5 got the requisite certificate on 28th July, 2005. Thus was lacking basic qualification. 3. Official Respondents have contested the petition on the ground that the respondent No - 5 was meritorious and had applied within time. It is apt to reproduce para (6) of the reply herein: "In reply to para-6 and the grounds taken in the para, it is submitted that same are legally misconceived, untenable and without any merit, therefore, deserve to be rejected by this Honble court. It is submitted that respondent No.5 has applied within the period prescribed and in view of her better merit has been selected over and above the petitioner. The matter viz-a-viz residence of respondent No. 5 was also verified on spot and it was found that the office of Deputy Commissioner, Budgam and it was certified that the respondent No.5 is still unmarried and is residing with her brother at Kitch Tazger. Copy of the said communication is placed on record as Affidavit in support of the reply is also enclosed." 4. Respondent No.5 has also filed reply and resist the petition on the ground that she has filed application within time in terms of advertisement notice (supra) and was having better merit. The copy of the panel-R2 is on the file, which also indicates that Fahmeeda Akhter had applied within time and was having better merit as compared to writ petitioner and one Asmat Zahoor. The copy of the panel-R2 is on the file, which also indicates that Fahmeeda Akhter had applied within time and was having better merit as compared to writ petitioner and one Asmat Zahoor. So the first ground of attack is devoid of any merit. 5. The second ground that she was not having PRC in her armoury at the relevant time is misconceived for the following reasons. 6. Delay in obtaining a PRC with in time cannot be termed that he/she is not the resident of the Jammu & Kashmir. Whether he/ she is resident of Jammu & Kashmir or belongs to any backward area is a question of status. If a person fails to get requisite certificate within time would it mean that he/she is ineligible to compete? For competing in a selection process for appointment, the academic qualification is must. If requisite certificate relating to status is obtained after cut of date though applied earlier, it cannot be held that he/she is ineligible. 7. Division Bench of this Court in case titled Surjeet Singh Bali Vs. State and others, 2007 (2) JKJ HC-382 (LPA(SW)649/1999) decided on 14.03.2007 has held as under: "The next question which needs to be replied is whether private respondents 6 and 7 have been rightly considered in the RBA category despite of the fact that they submitted the RBA category certificate after the curt of date but before the examination was held? The RBA status is conferred by residence/ domicile. The private respondents were having this status even at the time of submission of application forms but were not in possession of the certificates concerned, which came to be issued in their favour after filing of the application forms and before the examination came to be held. They have mentioned in the application forms that they belong to RBA category. While making this observation, we are supported by what was said by this court in the case reported as 2002(1) SLJ 234, J&K Public Service Commission and anr v. Ms Rimpi Ohri and anr." 8. However, it appears that respondent No--5 had applied for issuance of PRC certificate but was not issued within time but was under process at the relevant point of time. In the given circumstances of the case it cannot be said that respondent No.5 was ineligible. 9. In view of the above, no case for admission is made out. However, it appears that respondent No--5 had applied for issuance of PRC certificate but was not issued within time but was under process at the relevant point of time. In the given circumstances of the case it cannot be said that respondent No.5 was ineligible. 9. In view of the above, no case for admission is made out. According, the writ petition is dismissed along with all connected CMPs. Interim direction, if any, vacated.