Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 716 (JK)

Adarsh Kumar Shama & Ors. v. State & Ors.

2012-11-16

HASNAIN MASSODI

body2012
1. The petitioners and private respondents responded to the Advertisement Notice published in news paper 'Daily Excelsior' dated 31.01.2009 issued by the Director General of Police, J&K Police, Jammu-respondent no.2 in the petition, whereby applications were invited from the eligible candidates for the available vacancies of Sub-Inspectors in the J&K Police Department. 2. The petitioners appeared in the outdoor test and were found eligible for undergoing preliminary test proposed to be held for short-listing candidates for the "Main Written Examination". The respondent no. 2, however, decided to dispense with preliminary test and allowed all the aspirants for the advertised posts who satisfied physical measurement and passed Endurance outdoor test, to sit in the "Main Written Examination". The petitioners and private respondents, accordingly, appeared in the "Main Written Examination". However, the petitioners did not make the grade and were not called for viva-voice and resultantly did not find place in the select list. The private respondents on the other hand, who passed the "Main Written Examination", were called for interview and selected for the available posts. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved with their non-selection, and selection and appointment of private respondents primarily on the grounds that respondent no.2 while dispensing with the preliminary test, changed the eligibility criteria in the middle of the selection process, rendering the selection and appointment, made, liable to be quashed. The petitioners also voiced suspicion regarding the mode and manner in which their merit and that of selected candidates was assessed and evaluated. They apprehend that either their answer sheets were not properly evaluated or favour was shown by those saddled with responsibility to evaluate the answer sheets, to the private respondents/selected candidates. The apprehension arose from their perception that as they had faired well in the "Main Written Examination", they were to get good merit in the said examination. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while dilating on the averments made in the writ petition insist that the selection authority lacked power and jurisdiction to change the eligibility criteria or mode and method of selection, midstream and selection made, therefore, was liable to be quashed. 5. Heard and considered. 6. There can be no disagreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Selection Committee or the Board cannot change, revise or modify eligibility criteria in the middle of the selection process. 5. Heard and considered. 6. There can be no disagreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Selection Committee or the Board cannot change, revise or modify eligibility criteria in the middle of the selection process. The underlying principle for such legal proposition is not difficult to understand. A candidate aspiring for employment under the State would come forward to respond to the Advertisement Notice only if he fulfils the eligibility criteria prescribed for the advertised post as notified in Recruitment Rules/Advertisement Notice. Such a candidate would stay at the fence if he finds that he does not satisfy prescribed eligibility criteria and avoid jumping in to the arena. Once the Selection Committee or Board, decides to change the eligibility criteria in the middle of the selection process, the candidate who would have otherwise decided to compete for the advertised post, but did not respond as he felt that he did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, would be deprived of an opportunity to participate in the selection process. The decision of the Selection Committee or the Board would, therefore, offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, the same is not true about the methodology to be followed by the Selection Committee or the Board for making the selection. 7. The aspirant for the advertised posts, in case, the methodology for selection has been changed or modified, would be required to further show that he has been prejudiced by the change or modification and put to disadvantage as against the other candidates in the fray. The reason for said legal proposition again is not difficult to understand. The change in methodology does not necessitate change in the eligibility criteria. The Selection Committee or the Board by making change in methodology of selection does not propose to put any candidate (s) to any disadvantage and it instead provides level play field to all the candidates. In the circumstances, a candidate aggrieved with change of methodology, would be required to show and establish that such change has exposed him to any disadvantage. 8. In the present case, the respondents decided to dispense with the preliminary test, earlier proposed to be conducted and instead decided to go straigh I to the "Main Written Examination". In the circumstances, a candidate aggrieved with change of methodology, would be required to show and establish that such change has exposed him to any disadvantage. 8. In the present case, the respondents decided to dispense with the preliminary test, earlier proposed to be conducted and instead decided to go straigh I to the "Main Written Examination". All the candidates, who passed the Endurance/outdoor test and satisfied the physical measurement including the petitioners, were allowed to sit in the "Main Written Examination" without going through any screening test at the preliminary stage. 9. It is pertinent to point out that the Selection Committee or the Board instead in view of the huge response to the Advertisement Notice, may decide to hold preliminary test so that the only meritorious candidate in a reasonable ratio are called for the "Main Written Examination". Such recourse is permissible as the "Main Written Examination" involves huge administrative costs and there is no point in allowing all the candidates irrespective of number of advertised vacancies to appear in the "Main Written Examination". However, a reasonable ratio is to be maintained between the number of vacancies and number of candidates called for the 'Main Written Examination". The base line is that methodology adopted must help the Selection Committee or the Board to pick up the most meritorious candidates from the market place. 10. Be that as it may, the petitioners in the present case were permitted to straightway sit in the "Main Written Examination" without appearing in the preliminary test. The petitioners, therefore, cannot have any grievance as regards the methodology adopted by the Selection Committee or the Board. It is not body's case that the private respondents, who were given the same treatment as was meted out to the petitioners, were given any advantage over the petitioners or helped to steal march over the petitioners by dispensing with the preliminary test. There is, in the circumstances, no force in the main plank of the petitioners' case as set out in the writ petition. 11. This apart, the respondent no. 2 signified his intention to dispense with the preliminary test and to go straightway to conduct the "Main Written Examination" on 25.02.2010, when notice in this regard was published in local dailies of Jammu and Srinagar, copy of the notice is placed on the file as Annexure-E to the writ petition. 11. This apart, the respondent no. 2 signified his intention to dispense with the preliminary test and to go straightway to conduct the "Main Written Examination" on 25.02.2010, when notice in this regard was published in local dailies of Jammu and Srinagar, copy of the notice is placed on the file as Annexure-E to the writ petition. The petitioners did not question the notice in an appropriate proceeding. They instead participated in the selection process, appeared in the "Main Written Examination" and condoned the decision of the Selection Committee or the Board to dispense with the preliminary test. 12. The petitioners have felt need to approach this Court with a writ petition on hand on 21.12.2010, only when they were disappointed by their non inclusion in the merit list notified by respondent no.2 on October 10, 2010. The petitioners after participating in the selection process without assailing the decision notified on 25.02.2010, turned around and questioned the selection process only when they did not find place in the merit list. The writ petition-merits dismissal on this ground as well. 13. The apprehensions voiced by the petitioners in the writ petition with regard to mode and method in which their answer sheets were evaluated are grossly misplaced. The Court had an opportunity to go through the record including the answer sheets of the petitioners and did not come across any lapse on the part of the Experts to whom the answer sheets were forwarded for evaluation. 14. So viewed, this petition is bereft of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CMA (s).