Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 541 (JK)

Sheikh Muzaffar Rashid v. High Court Of J&K

2009-11-06

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2009
1. Respondent no.2 issued notification No. 103 dated 9th of April, 2009, inviting applications from permanent residents of the State of J&K for selection/appointment to the post of Data Entry Operators in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 in Subordinate Courts. The requisite qualification as prescribed by said advertisement notification is (i) Graduate from any recognized university with proficiency in English Language and having elementary knowledge of Urdu. (ii) BCA from a recognized university having sufficient experience in computer operations and typing. 2. Petitioner responded to the said notification for seeking consideration for being selected and appointed to the post of Data Entry Operator in the Subordinate Courts. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 issued notification no. 644 dated 23rd of October, 2009. The said notification informed that candidates listed in annexure-A have been found eligible as per requisite qualification prescribed for the said post and were accordingly informed that the written test will be held as per the date sheet mentioned in the said notification. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is possessing Graduation Degree from University of Kashmir, PGDCA Degree and Master Degree in Information Technology. He further submitted that respondent no.3 is also possessing the same degrees. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Considered the matter. 6. Admittedly, petitioner is not possessing qualification of BCA prescribed in terms of advertisement notification No. 103 dated 9th of April, 2009 hereinabove. 7. A notification is an information to all eligible candidates to seek selection and appointment to a particular post. The notification issued, binds the authority who issued the same and in order to seek consideration for being selected and appointed to the post notified through advertisement notification, candidate is to possess all the qualifications prescribed in the notification. A candidate who is not possessed of all the qualification prescribed in the notification, cannot seek consideration for being selected and appointed to the post being ineligible according to advertisement notification. 8. When a candidate is not possessed of the prescribed qualification, no right in law is vested in him to seek consideration for being selected and appointed to the post advertised. 9. Petitioner has no case to seek consideration for being selected and appointed to the post of Data Entry Operator as admittedly he is not possessed of the prescribed qualification. 10. 9. Petitioner has no case to seek consideration for being selected and appointed to the post of Data Entry Operator as admittedly he is not possessed of the prescribed qualification. 10. The argument is raised by the learned counsel for petitioner that respondent no.3 is not possessing the BCA Degree and is similarly placed with the petitioner, and despite that he has been invited to take the written test in terms of the notification no. 644 dated 23rd of October, 2009 and thus petitioner has been subjected to invidious discrimination as petitioner has not been invited to take the written test. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner, in this behalf, has referred to paragraph-6 of the writ petition. Paragraph-6 of the writ petition is reproduced as under: "That the short grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he being more meritorious than proforma respondent no.3 and also possessed of the qualification prescribed for the post of Data Entry Operator legitimately and bonafidely expected his selection for appearance in the written test however, the respondents without any rhyme, reason or lawful justification have excluded the petitioner by ignoring his merit inasmuch as rightful and legitimate on one hand and on the other hand, reflecting the name of respondent no.3 as eligible for appearing in the written test scheduled to be held on 08-11-2009 (Sunday) at 11 am at Amar Singh College, Srinagar. As has been stated hereinabove, the petitioner has better merit than the proforma respondent and though the respondents acknowledged the candidature of the petitioner by executing a receipt on entertaining his application form, yet have without any lawful justification denied the petitioner an opportunity to compete for the post in question while issuing notification dated 23.10.2009. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has been not only subjected to hostile discrimination vis-`-vis the proforma respondent but his legal, statutory and fundamental rights have also been infringed, leaving in these circumstances no option for the petitioner except to seek the indulgence of this Honble Court. Hence the writ petition." 12. Perusal of this pleading of writ petition reveals that petitioner has stated that he is more meritorious than proforma respondent no.3 and also possessed of qualification prescribed for the post of Data Entry Operator. In the said paragraph, it is nowhere pleaded that respondent no.3 is not possessed of all the prescribed qualifications. Hence the writ petition." 12. Perusal of this pleading of writ petition reveals that petitioner has stated that he is more meritorious than proforma respondent no.3 and also possessed of qualification prescribed for the post of Data Entry Operator. In the said paragraph, it is nowhere pleaded that respondent no.3 is not possessed of all the prescribed qualifications. No support can be derived by the petitioner on such a plea. 13. For the above stated reasons, this petition, being meritless, is dismissed in limni along with all connected CMP(s).