1. The petition on consideration is admitted to hearing and on consensus taken up for disposal at its threshold. 2. Chief Conservator of Forests (CAMPA), respondents no. 3 herein, on 25.04.2011 issued an advertisement notice notifying that J&K Forest De partment was in need of qualified man power for preparation of Working Plans and Demarcation of Forests. The per sons having diploma in Forestry from any recognized Rangers College (DDR) were asked to appear in person before the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kash mir and Jammu regions with their bio-data for assessment of their aptitude for the Working Plan preparation for re spective regions. The aspirants were also given the option to appear with their bio-data in the office of Chief Con servator of Forests (CAMPA). The en gagement as per the advertisement notice was required for 'specialized technical job'. It was further notified that the engagement would be need-based and in the project mode. There was also a word of caution for all those interested in the job as they were in formed that the Working Plan prepara tion and Demarcation duties would re quire extensive touting in remote ar eas and in dept knowledge of the sub ject. 3. The petitioners claim to have to their credit Bachelor's and Master's degree in Forestry and are aggrieved that though well equipped to man the positions advertised, they have been excluded from the zone of consider ation. The advertisement notice is impugned on the grounds that it does not indicate the number of posts, the particulars of the posts to be filled up so that all eligible for the advertised posts take an informed decision regard ing participation in the selection pro cess. The notice is labeled as cryptic, lacking in essential details and to have been issued in flagrant violation of the rules. It is alleged that the advertise ment notice has been intentionally left ' cryptic and ambiguous because of ex traneous considerations and issued to malicious exercise of executive power. It is pleaded that the impugned adver tisement notice infringes petitioners' right to consideration for available ad vertised posts. 4. The writ petition is opposed on the grounds that the advertisement notice gives all required details nec essary to convey the eligibility crite ria for and job requirements of the ad vertised positions and is not lacking in any material details.
4. The writ petition is opposed on the grounds that the advertisement notice gives all required details nec essary to convey the eligibility crite ria for and job requirements of the ad vertised positions and is not lacking in any material details. It is insisted that laying down eligibility criteria falls ex clusively within the domain of the em ployer/department and that in the present case the power has been exer cised in a fair, transparent and objec tive manner. 5. Heard and considered. 6. It is pertinent to point out that the advertisement notice is not in tended to fill up any posts available and lying vacant in the J&K Forest Depart ment. The Forest Department proposes to embark upon a programme to pre pare Working Plans and demarcate the forests. The department proposes to as sociate qualified men with the pro posed project. The persons picked up for their association with the project have not to get automatically associ ated with the project. It is expressly laid down in the advertisement notice that their association with the project would be on need basis and shall de pend upon the timeframe and area of operation of the project. Respondent No. 3 has made it clear that Working Plan preparation and demarcation duties would require extensive touring in re mote areas and-depth knowledge of the subject and that the proposes engagement would entail a specialized tech nical job. Respondent no. 3 against the aforesaid backdrop has laid down di ploma in Forestry from a recognized Rangers College like DDR as the quali fication for the advertised positions. 7. It is a fact of common knowledge that the Rangers College does not merely impart education in Forestry as the name of the course indicates but the candidates enrolled in the Diploma Course in a Rangers College have to undergo vigorous practical training that includes extensive touring of the forests throughout the country. The candidates are imparted training to make them well equipped for the post of Forest Rangers and discharger the duties of protection, maintenance and preservation of a forest range that they may have to look after once they get appointed against such post. In other words the Diploma in Forestry from a Rangers College is not purely an aca demic course but a specialized techni cal course.
In other words the Diploma in Forestry from a Rangers College is not purely an aca demic course but a specialized techni cal course. The Bachelor's and Master's degree in Forestry on the other hand is an academic course without having any component of practical training. It is just like a Bachelor's or Master's de gree in Education as against a B. Ed or M. Ed. Course from a Teachers Train ing College. Whereas a Bachelor's or Master's programme in Education in purely academic in nature, the B. Ed. and the M. Ed, involve practical train ing as important components of the course. In the circumstances the peti tioners cannot complain that they though having a Bachelor's and/or Master's degree in Forestry have been illegally excluded from the zone of con sideration and exposed to any hostile discrimination. The candidates having diploma in Forestry from a Rangers College like DDR and the candidates with Bachelor's and Master's Degree in Forestry from different colleges or uni versities belong to two different and dis tinct classes and the petitioners can not be heard saying that their right to equality granted under Article 14 Con stitution of India has been violated. 8. This apart, an employer, say a government department or an organi zation, has complete freedom to lay down eligibility criteria for a post and a candidate cannot find fault with it un less the eligibility criteria so fixed has no nexus at all with the post. In the present case as already pointed out the eligibility criterion laid down, as is evi dent from the contents of the advertise ment notice impugned in the petition, has a direct and reasonable nexus with the job requirement of the post. Reli ance placed by the petitioners on law laid down in Dr. Mehta Rupaben Ishwarbhai and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 1977 (1) SLR 535; Makhan Lal Mattoo Vs. Union of India and others, 1982 SLJ 333; G. N. Mullick & Anr. Vs. State, SLJ 1997, 65; H. S. Sahni and others Vs. State, 1999 SLJ 105; Bashir Ahmad Allayee and others Vs. State, HC 505, 2005 (1) JKJ; Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. Satinder Kumar and another, 1995 Supp (4) SCC; State of Haryana and others Vs. Indira Kumari (2003) 10 SCC 150; State of Mysore Vs. S. JR.
Vs. State, SLJ 1997, 65; H. S. Sahni and others Vs. State, 1999 SLJ 105; Bashir Ahmad Allayee and others Vs. State, HC 505, 2005 (1) JKJ; Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. Satinder Kumar and another, 1995 Supp (4) SCC; State of Haryana and others Vs. Indira Kumari (2003) 10 SCC 150; State of Mysore Vs. S. JR. Jayaram, 1968 SC AIR 346 is misplaced as the facts of the reported cases are markedly differ ent from the fats of the present case. This apart in G. N. Mullick and another Vs. State (supra) it has been ob served: "It is no more res-integra that it is the employer's domain to lay down and prescribe a qualification for ap pointment to a post A candidate for the post would have to sink or swim with this qualification. It is different matter if the prescribed qualification is unreasonable, irrational or inca pable of being acquired. Even in such cases, it would be presumed to be valid till it is struck down." 9. The aforesaid reported cases thus instead of extending support to the pe titioners' case, belie the stand taken by the petitioners. 10. The advertisement notice in question gives sufficient details about the nature of the job, the activities that are to form an integral component of the job and the eligibility criteria for the advertised positions. It also makes it clear that what is advertised is not a post but to get trained manpower equipped with necessary training and expertise for a project and that anyone found competent to be associated with the project shall have to be so associ ated only on need basis. The advertise ment notice is thus sufficient in all de tails and cannot be labeled as cryptic, vague or ambiguous as is sought to be projected by the petitioners. 11. For the reasons discussed, there is no merit in the petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim direction, if any, is vacated. …………………………… Hhhhhhhhhhhh 2012 (1) S.L.J 329 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Srinagar Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J Qazi Yasir Ahmad Vs.
11. For the reasons discussed, there is no merit in the petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim direction, if any, is vacated. …………………………… Hhhhhhhhhhhh 2012 (1) S.L.J 329 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Srinagar Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J Qazi Yasir Ahmad Vs. State & Ors HCP No. 266/2010 22.04.2011 Constitution of India; Article 21-right to life and personal Liberty:- The Right to Life and Liberty is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution - Deprivation of this right while having recourse to preventive measures also controlled by the safeguards to be respected -Infraction to such safeguards vitiates the action of the Detaining Authority - the right of the detenue to challenge the executive invasion of his personal liberty strengthens due to the procedural defects - The Detaining Authority keeping in view the sacrosanct protection as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution - under an obligation to show in a transparent manner that the detention meticulously conforms to the procedure established by law. See para 1 J&K Public Safety Act: Person already in custody- When a person is already in custody in connection with cases registered against him and has not been admitted to bail nor any application for grant of bail has been filed - the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority held to be resultant of non application of mind. See para 6 Grounds of detention to be suuplied to the detenue:- Where only the copy of grounds of detention which has been supplied to the detenue, which is not substantial compliance of the requirement of furnishing the material - held the material does not mean only the grounds of detention but means the material forming base for the grounds of detention, violation of which renders the order of detention as bad in law. See para 10