Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 638 (JK)

Showkat Ahmad Khan v. State

2009-12-11

J.P.Singh

body2009
1. Selection of Mohammad Haneef, respondent no.5, as Turner, for the post notified in the Handicrafts Department of the State Government, by the Jammu & Kashmir Service Selection Recruitment Board, Srinagar, pursuant to Notification No.8 of 1995 dated 22.11.1995, has been questioned by the petitioner, Showkat Ahmad Khan, the unsuccessful candidate, on the ground that no proper Selection was conducted by the Board, in that, the expert on the panel of the Selection Committee, Molvi Mushtaq, respondent no.2, had not participated in the Selection process, on the ground that the selection, according to him, needed to be held on the basis of practical test of the candidates. Yet another ground pressed into service by the petitioner questioning the selection of respondent No.5 is that he did not possess requisite experience of 10 years in the trade of Turner and was thus disqualified for the Selection. 2. The Jammu & Kashmir Service Selection Recruitment Board, Srinagar, has indicated in its reply to the writ petition that the Committee of three members was constituted by the Board to conduct interview of the eligible candidates and the criteria which was required to be followed by the Committee was as follows:- "20 points - for experience of 10 years, 10 points - for additional experience (one point for every subsequent year) 20 points - for viva voce Total - 50 points." 3. Mrs. Sugra Hafiz was the Convener of the Committee whereas Deputy Director Handicrafts and District Employment Officer, Srinagar, were the other members of the Committee. Out of the six candidates, who had applied seeking consideration for Selection for the post of Turner, one was found ineligible and rest had been called for the interview, out of which only two i.e, petitioner and respondent No.5, appeared in the interview. Petitioner, Showkat Ahmad Khan was Middle-pass whereas respondent no.5 was TDC pass. Both these candidates had ten years experience as Turner. The petitioner obtained 13 points in the interview whereas respondent no.5 obtained 15 points, thus, with 13 points the petitioner ranked lower in merit to respondent No.5. 4. Petitioner's plea that respondent No.5 did not have 10 years experience as Turner has been specifically denied by the Board. 5. Both these candidates had ten years experience as Turner. The petitioner obtained 13 points in the interview whereas respondent no.5 obtained 15 points, thus, with 13 points the petitioner ranked lower in merit to respondent No.5. 4. Petitioner's plea that respondent No.5 did not have 10 years experience as Turner has been specifically denied by the Board. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the Selection records produced by the learned counsel for the Board at the time of the consideration of the case. 6. Petitioner's learned counsel's main plea in support of the Petition that Molvi Mushtaq, who was the expert member in the Selection Committee, had not consented to the selection of respondent No.5, thereby rendering the impugned Selection bad in law, is not found substantiated, after perusal of the records. This is so because what has been recorded in the minutes of proceedings of the Selection Committee is that Molvi Mushtaq's suggestion to the Selection Committee to hold practical test of the two candidates, who had appeared in the interview, had not been agreed to by the other two members and the Selection had thereafter been made strictly on the basis of the viva voce test and other documentary evidence produced by the candidates. The note appended to the Minutes of Meeting of the Selection Committee by Molvi Mushtaq, Deputy Director Handicrafts, one of the members of the Committee, therefore, clearly demonstrates that the Selection had been held accordingly to the already laid down criteria on the basis of the performance of the candidates at the interview and the documentary evidence they had projected to support their respective Claims to Selection. 7. Petitioner's counsel's plea that Molvi Mushtaq had not participated in the Selection pursuant to his objection that the candidates should be put to practical test, is not supported by the records, which indicate due participation of Mr. Molvi Mushtaq in the Selection Committee proceedings taken for the Selection of the candidates. 8. The petitioner having participated in the Selection process and found lower in merit by to duly constituted Committee in accordance with the laid down criteria, is disentitled to question the Selection of respondent No.5, whom the Committee had found better in merit, which, on the basis of his credentials, he appears to be so, to the petitioner. 9. 8. The petitioner having participated in the Selection process and found lower in merit by to duly constituted Committee in accordance with the laid down criteria, is disentitled to question the Selection of respondent No.5, whom the Committee had found better in merit, which, on the basis of his credentials, he appears to be so, to the petitioner. 9. For all what has been said above, there is no merit in the petitioner's writ petition justifying interference into respondent No.5's selection as Turner. 10. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Records be returned to Sh. A.M. Magray, Learned Senior Additional Advocate General.