Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 113 (JK)

Fida Hussain v. State

2009-03-17

J.P.SINGH

body2009
1. Petitioners had applied seeking consideration for selection against the posts of Sub-Inspectors in the Jammu and Kashmir Police Department pursuant to Notification No. Pers/A-400/2007/ 5991-6090 dated 17.01.2007 of the Police Headquarters, Jammu and Kashmir. This Notification was later withdrawn vide Notification No. Pers/A-400/2007/ 28618-63 dated 01.07.2008 and thereafter another Notification No. DIP/J/6749 dated 02.02.2009 was issued by the Police Headquarters, Jammu and Kashmir inviting applications from the candidates within the age group of 18 to 28 years, as on first day of January, 2009 for selection against the available posts of Sub-Inspectors in the Jammu and Kashmir Police Department. 2. Petitioners grievance in the writ petition, in a nut-shell, is that omission of the respondents to complete the selection process for filling up the available posts of Sub-Inspectors in the Jammu and Kashmir Police Department, pursuant to Notification issued in the year 2007, had rendered them ineligible to compete for selection against the posts of Sub-Inspectors, advertised for selection vide Notification No. DIP/J/6749 dated 02.02.2009 and in such view of the matter, the State-respondents are required to be commanded to permit petitioners participation for selection against the advertised posts, regardless of their having crossed the upper age limit prescribed in terms of the subsequent Notification. 3. I have considered the submissions of petitioners learned counsel and am of the opinion that right to consideration for selection against the posts available with an employer, becomes available to the seekers of employment only when the employer intends to fill up the posts. Right of such consideration flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India, may not, however, contemplate its extension to the extent of compelling the employer to necessarily go in for filling up the posts. According to the well established principles of the Service jurisprudence, it is the prerogative of the employer to fill up the posts available with it as and when he may contemplate so to do. His right to withdraw his earlier invitation to candidates for selection, and/or to go in for a fresh invitation, cannot therefore be trampled with. 4. According to the well established principles of the Service jurisprudence, it is the prerogative of the employer to fill up the posts available with it as and when he may contemplate so to do. His right to withdraw his earlier invitation to candidates for selection, and/or to go in for a fresh invitation, cannot therefore be trampled with. 4. The petitioners can thus neither question the Respondents Notification of July 01, 2008, withdrawing earlier Notification of 2007, nor have they any right to seek any command against the respondents to permit them to participate in the selection process, pursuant to subsequent Notification issued in February 2009 in view of their admitted ineligibility to compete for the said posts because of their having crossed the upper age limit prescribed in the Notification. 5. No case for admission of the writ petition has thus been made out, which is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.