Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 424 (JK)

Udhay Rani v. Chairman, J&K SSRB

2010-07-31

J.P.Singh

body2010
1. Aggrieved by the selection of Preeti Rajput-respondent No.5 as Teacher against the posts reserved for candidates belonging to OBC Category, the petitioner, who had participated in the selection process initiated by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board for selection of Teachers, pursuant to its Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 1999 of March 09, 1999, has approached this Court seeking quashing of the selection of respondent No.5, besides a direction to the respondents to select her as Teacher in District Cadre Udhampur against the reserved category of Other Backward Classes. 2. The case projected by the petitioner is that respondent No.5 had managed her selection against the reserved category of Other Backward Classes whereas being a Rajput by Caste, she was not so entitled. 3. Disputing the petitioner’s plea, the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board has supported respondent No.5’s selection under the Other Backward Classes Category urging that having secured 47.93 points i.e. more than the last selected candidate who had obtained 43.16 points, the respondent No.5 had earned her selection on the basis of merit. 4. The petitioner having secured only 33.98 points i.e. less than the last selected candidate under the reserved category is thus stated not entitled to selection as Teacher. 5. Respondent No.5, though served twice, opted not to contest the Writ Petition. She was, accordingly, set ex-parte firstly on August 31, 2006 and thereafter on February 04, 2010. 6. Before dealing the issue, raised by the petitioner, disputing respondent No.5’s status as a person belonging to the reserved category of Other Backward Classes, it was considered appropriate to direct the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board to produce the Application Form, along with all documents annexed therewith, of respondent No.5 to ascertain her status. 7. Despite availing several opportunities to produce the records, the Board has not done the needful and its counsel informs that the records were not available with the Board. 8. 7. Despite availing several opportunities to produce the records, the Board has not done the needful and its counsel informs that the records were not available with the Board. 8. In these circumstances when the Board was unable to produce the records to justify respondent No.5’s selection as Teacher under the reserved category of Other Backward Classes and the respondent No.5 has opted not to contest the petitioner’s Writ Petition to disprove the petitioner’s specific case on facts that she did not belong to the reserved category of Other Backward Classes, the petitioner’s plea that respondent No.5 did not belong to the reserved category and thus disentitled to selection as Teacher, gets substantiated. 9. As nothing has been placed on records by the respondents to indicate that respondent No.5 belonged to the reserved category of Other Backward Classes, so her selection against the reserved category cannot be sustained. She is, accordingly, held disqualified to seek consideration for selection against the reserved category of Other Backward Classes. 10. Petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2002 and during the pendency of the Writ Petition in the Court for about eight years, no other candidate belonging to the reserved category of Other Backward Classes has either questioned the selection of respondent No.5 or staked his or her claim to selection indicating that none other than the petitioner was interested to serve as Teacher against the post for which respondent No.5 had been recommended by the Board. 11. I am, therefore, of the opinion that in the circumstances, same course which was adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sri Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and another v. State of Karnataka and others, reported as AIR 1992 SC, 80, needs to be followed in the petitioner’s case too, in the interests of Justice. 12. This Writ Petition, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed, quashing the selection of Preeti Rajput-respondent No.5 as General Line Teacher - District Cadre Udhampur. 13. A direction shall, accordingly, issue to the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board to consider the petitioner for selection against the post of Teacher-District Cadre Udhampur and to make requisite recommendation in this behalf to the Government for her appointment. 14. The Board shall complete the above exercise within a period of three months.