Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 398 (JK)

Taranjeet Singh v. State

2010-07-17

Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain

body2010
1. An advertisement for filling up the posts of Allopathic Doctors, Junior Staff Nurses, ISM Pharmacists, Laboratory Technicians and Female Multipurpose Workers on contractual basis under NRHM Scheme was issued by the respondents. The petitioners also applied for the post of Allopathic doctor. A Selection Committee constituted by the District Health Society, Jammu conducted interviews of the eligible candidates. A list has been prepared and the petitioners state that they are also included in the said list. 2. Vide order No.173-DDCJ of 2009 dated 17.11.2009, District Development Commissioner (Chairman, District Health Society), Jammu has withdrawn the selection list prepared by the Selection Committee on the ground that the said Committee had ignored some basic criteria for selection. The petitioners are aggrieved of the same. They state that since they figure in the selection list, the respondents should appoint them against the said posts. The petitioners’ further grievance is that the list has been withdrawn by the respondents on the grounds which are not sustainable in the eye of law. They seek quashment of the Order No. 173-DDCJ of 2009 dated 17.11.2009. 3. The respondents have stated that the District Health Society, Jammu advertised the posts of different categories including the posts of Allopathic Doctors for appointment on contractual basis under NRHM. The Selection Committee was constituted and the interviews were conducted and accordingly selection list was prepared. It is further stated by the respondents that before appointment orders were issued, it was found that the selection committee has ignored some basic criteria for selection, as all the posts under NRHM are on contract basis with criteria of local residence, the selection committee has not spelled out preference for candidates who are locals. This aspect was taken into consideration and the District Health Society, Jammu has decided to evolve fresh weightage and criteria for making selection of vacancies under NRHM by inviting fresh applications and accordingly vide order No. 173-DDCJ of 2009 dated 17 11.2009 withdrew the selection list. 4. Heard. I have considered the matter. 5. This aspect was taken into consideration and the District Health Society, Jammu has decided to evolve fresh weightage and criteria for making selection of vacancies under NRHM by inviting fresh applications and accordingly vide order No. 173-DDCJ of 2009 dated 17 11.2009 withdrew the selection list. 4. Heard. I have considered the matter. 5. Order No. 173-DDCJ of 2009 dated 17.11.2009 reads as under.- "Whereas, the District Health Society framed the criteria of break of marks for the interviews, 80 points for academic merit and 20 points for interview which included points for overall assessment of the candidate i.e. personality, knowledge, willingness to works, experience and residence; Whereas, specific weightage to experience and local residence was not indicated and, therefore, prima facie it appeared to the Committee that the Selection committee has not clearly spelled out preference for candidate who are local and experienced; Whereas, Project Director Family Welfare and RCH vide his letter No.SHS/RCH-II/7929-32 dated 26.10.2009, pointed out that all the posts under NRHM are on contract basis on local criteria, residence at the place of posting is mandatory and felt that the selection committee, has ignored some basis criteria for selection; and Whereas, the District Society has decided to evolve weightage and criteria for making selection of vacancies under NRHM by inviting fresh applications and scrutinize the applications as per the guidelines to be worked out in consultation with the State Health Society, J&K Whereas, it becomes necessary to withdraw the selection list and not to issue appointment orders to the candidates on this selection list; and Now, therefore, the selection list notified vide No.CMO/J/NRHM/DHS/229 dated 20.10.2009 and published in the local newspapers on 22.10.2009 is hereby withdrawn." 6. Perusal of this order would show that the matter has been examined by the respondents who have found that the Selection Committee has not spelled out preference for candidates who are locals and experienced. The respondents have further found that the Committee has ignored some basic criteria for selection. It is on this ground that the respondents have decided to withdraw the list and have in this behalf issued order dated 17.11.2009, impugned in the present petition. 7. The petitioners’ plea, as was strenuously urged by their learned counsel, is that the list has been withdrawn on the ground that the Committee has not given weightage to the candidates who are locals and experienced. 7. The petitioners’ plea, as was strenuously urged by their learned counsel, is that the list has been withdrawn on the ground that the Committee has not given weightage to the candidates who are locals and experienced. This ground, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is unconstitutional, as Apex Court and this Court has in various authorities held that the selection on the basis of locality is not permissible. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the present petition for the reason that the Selection Committee has only conducted the interviews and empanelled the candidates. It is now well settled by various judgments of the Supreme Court that empanelment of the candidate in the select list does not confer any right on the candidate to seek appointment on account of being so empanelled. At the best empanelment is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection nor does it vest any right in the selectee to force the authorities to appoint him. 9. Recommendation of the selection committee is not binding on the appointing authority, the same does not create any vested right or give rise to any legitimate expectation in the candidate. Reference in this behalf may be made to Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India 1991(3) SCC 47 . 10. A writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution can be maintained only when there is violation of any right which pre-supposes existence of any right in favour of the petitioner. In State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta 1952 SCR 28 , it was held that the existence of the right is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 11. Since mere empanelment does not create any right, the petitioners on the basis of their empanelment do not have any cause to maintain the present petition. 12. In these circumstances, this petition does not survive, hence dismissed.