Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 555 (JK)

Suhail Ahmad Bhat v. State Of J&K

2011-10-21

J.P.Singh, MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2011
J.P. Singh, J. 1. The Information Department of the State Government referred three posts of Assistant Information Officer Grade-I and one post of Assistant Information Officer Grade-II to the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board for selection of candidates thereto. Out of three posts of Assistant Information Officer Grade-I, one post was reserved for the candidates belonging to the reserved category of Residents of Backward Area. On evaluation of merit of the candidates competing against the posts in Open Merit Category, the last selected candidate was found to have obtained 66.26 points. The appellant securing 63.80 points could not, therefore, find place in the Select List. 2. Malik Zahra Khalid, one of the selected candidates, on being offered appointment, did not, however, join. The appellant, therefore, approached this Court by his Writ Petition SWP No. 842/2001 seeking directions against the Services Selection Board to prepare Waiting List including appellant's name therein as he was next in merit of the Merit List prepared for selection of candidates against the posts of Assistant Information Officer Grade-I. 3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissed the appellant's Writ Petition holding that the Board was not obliged to prepare Waiting List in terms of the Jammu & Kashmir Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992, which provided finalization of Waiting List of only 20% of the total number of selected candidates, which position would not arise in the present case as the total number of selected candidates being only two, there was no requirement of publishing the Waiting list. Aggrieved by the Judgment on his Writ Petition, the appellant has approached us seeking setting aside of Judgment of the learned Single Judge and issuance of Command to the respondents to prepare the Waiting List. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar. 5. Rule 10 of the Jammu & Kashmir Sub-ordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992, reads thus:- "10. Recruitment and Selection : (i) The Board shall finalize the selection after holding such tests or examinations as may be prescribed under rules, or if there are no such rule as the Board may consider necessary. (ii) The Board while making selections and allocating candidates to various cadres shall take into account the reservations made from time to time for various categories. (ii) The Board while making selections and allocating candidates to various cadres shall take into account the reservations made from time to time for various categories. (iii) The Board shall finalize the selection list which shall be equal to the number of vacancies for which requisition was made and recommend it to the concerned appointing authority. (iv) The selection list shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date it is accepted by the appointing authority. (v) The appointing authority for reasons to be recorded may not accept the select list received from the Board and return same to the Board for making such selections. Provided that no such action shall be taken by the appointing authority without prior approval in writing of the Administrative Department. (vi) The Board shall also finalize waiting list of 20% of the total number of selected candidates and forward the same to the concerned department. The waiting list shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date of its receipt or till a fresh list is drawn up by the Recruitment Board, whichever be earlier." 6. Perusal of the Rule 10 (vi) of the Rules indicates that the Board is obliged to finalize Waiting List of 20% of the total number of selected candidates and forward to the same Department. This obligation, in our view, would arise only if the number of selected candidates was such that may occasion inclusion of the candidates, if any, appearing in the Merit List, after the last candidate selected for the posts, in the Waiting List. The Rule would have, therefore, no application where 20% of the selected candidates would not yield any vacancy for inclusion of the names of the candidate appearing next in the Merit List. 7. Thus, considered, the number of selected candidates in the present selection against which the appellant seeks his inclusion in the Waiting List, being less than five, the Board was not obliged to finalize the Waiting List. 8. For all what has been said above, the appellant's Appeal is found without merit, hence dismissed.