Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 437 (JK)

Showkat Ahmad Zadoo v. State Of J. &K.

2009-08-31

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2009
1. Petitioners have contended in these writ petitions that respondent No.3 issued a notification No. 11 PSC dated 29th of August, 1990 for making selection/ appointment against the post of Lecturer in Higher Education Department. Petitioners also participated but respondents have not appointed/ selected them though they were meritorious than the private respondents. Further, it is contended that only one post was advertised but respondents made selection/ appointment against seven posts. 2. Both the writ petitions came to be clubbed. Respondents have filed reply only in SWP No. 1720/1997 and pleaded that one post of Lecturer (Education) in Higher Education Department, came to be advertised vide notification No.11-PSC of 1990 dated 29.08.1990. The Public Service Commission (PSC) issued another advertisement notice No.13-PSC of 90 dated 11.12.1990 for two more posts and it was mentioned in the said notification that candidates who have already applied/ responded in terms of notification No. 11-PSC of 1990 need not to apply afresh. During the pendency of the selection process in terms of said notifications, four more posts were referred to Public Service Commission and accordingly advertisement notification No.10-PSC of 1992 dated 23.04.1992 came to be issued and it is also contended that only 146 application forms were received by Public Service Commission and only 93 candidates were found eligible out of which only 64 candidates, participated in the selection process. The interview was conducted at Srinagar from 12th to 14th of March, 1993 and at Jammu on 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th and 11th of April, 1993. The said interview came to be conducted with the assistance of an Expert Advisor outside State whose services were requisitioned. The petitioners could not made the grade, thus cannot challenge the selection process. 3. Petitioners have filed rejoinder wherein they have stated that three posts were advertised and remaining four posts were not advertised. 4. The respondents have specifically given the advertisement notification numbers, date and have also given the number of candidates who applied, number of candidates who were found eligible and number of candidates who appeared in the interview. The petitioner also appeared in the interview, accepted the selection process and failed to make grade. It is beaten law of the land that once the candidate participates in the selection process, cannot challenge the selection criteria or selection process on any ground. 5. The petitioner also appeared in the interview, accepted the selection process and failed to make grade. It is beaten law of the land that once the candidate participates in the selection process, cannot challenge the selection criteria or selection process on any ground. 5. Thus, petitioners have failed to prima facie bring on record that they were having superior merit or the private respondents who came to be selected/ appointed were inferior in merit. In the given circumstances, both the writ petitions are dismissed along with all connected CMPs. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.