Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 745 (JK)

Vaneet Gupta v. State and Others

2012-12-06

HASNAIN MASSODI

body2012
Hasnain Massodi, J.— 1. Petitioner and respondent No. 4, responded to the advertisement notice dated 21st November, 2005, issued by Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Recruitment Board respondent No. 5 in the petition, inviting applications for a number of non Gazetted posts including Printing Down Operator, Etcher Artist, Senior Machine Man and Out Turn Checker in Ranbir government Press, Jammu. Both petitioner and respondent No. 4 participated in the selection process for the aforesaid posts. Needless to state that eligibility criteria for all the four posts was diploma in printing technology and as the petitioner and respondent No. 4, had the requisite qualification, they were eligible for the above posts. They were short listed for interview and on completion of selection process, were recommended and thereafter appointed as Printing Down Operator and Etcher Artist respectively. 2. However, petitioner as per his claim was higher in merit (61.10/100) as against respondent No. 4 (55. 76/100) and he appeared ahead of respondent No. 4 in the select list and recommendation made by the respondent Board. The appointment orders were issued on 26th August, 2006 in their favour and they joined against the respective posts on the same date. In terms of Jammu and Kashmir Press (Subordinate Service) Recruitment Rules, 1980, both Etcher Artist and Printing Down Operator are category II posts and carry the same pay scale. 3. The respondents on 7th October, 2009 issued a tentative seniority list as on 31st August, 2009 under endorsement No. 1544-45, wherein respondent No. 4 was shown ahead of petitioner in the order of seniority. The petitioner submitted objections to the tentative seniority list. The case projected by the petitioner in his objections was that as he had secured higher merit as compared to the respondent No. 4 in the selection process, he deserved to be placed ahead of respondent No. 4 in the seniority list. However, his objections did not find favour with the authority competent to finalize the seniority and final seniority list was issued vide No. 3236-39 dated 18th December, 2009 (Annexure N to the petition) without any change in their seniority position as reflected in tentative seniority list. 4. The petitioner seeks quashment of final seniority list notified vide No. 3236-39 dated 18th December, 2009 on the grounds urged in the petition. 4. The petitioner seeks quashment of final seniority list notified vide No. 3236-39 dated 18th December, 2009 on the grounds urged in the petition. He prays for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to fix his seniority in Camera Section of the Ranbir Government Press at serial No. 2 ahead of respondent No. 4 and not to operate the seniority list impugned in the petition. 5. The respondents 1 to 3 in their reply have admitted all the averments as regards participation of petitioner and respondent No. 4 made in the petition. It is however, pleaded that the Service Selection Recruitment Board forwarded the select list of Etcher Artist and Printing Down Operator through two communications bearing No. SSB/Sel/Secy/06/8694-98/06 dated 02.08.2006 and SSB/Sel/Secy/06/8689-93/06 dated 02.08.2006 respectively and that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 joined their respective posts on 02.08.2006. The respondents 1 to 3 insist that representation made by the petitioner against tentative seniority list was duly considered by the respondents and found to be without merit and that the final seniority list impugned in the petition has been framed in accordance with Rule 24 Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. 6. The respondent No. 4 in her reply has not disputed the averments as regards participation in the selection process and selection of petitioner and respondent No. 4 against the post of Printing Down Operator and Etcher Artist. The respondent in para four of her reply insists that the petitioner was placed at position 3 and 4 against Etcher Artist and Printing Down Operator posts, whereas the respondent was placed at position No. 1 and 2 and that in view of the position allotted to the petitioner and respondent, the respondent was higher in merit as compared to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 without denying that the interview/viva-voce was held on the same day for the four posts i.e. Printing Down Operator, Etcher Artist, Senior Machine Man and Out Turn Checker insists that the interview/viva-voce was held for each post separately and separate select lists were issued by the Service Selection Recruitment Board. It is denied that petitioner obtained higher merit in selection process and deserved to be placed ahead of the respondent No. 4. 7. It is denied that petitioner obtained higher merit in selection process and deserved to be placed ahead of the respondent No. 4. 7. The respondent No. 5 in his reply denied to have any role in fixing seniority of the candidates after they join against posts for which they are selected. The Board while admitting participation of petitioner and respondent No. 4 in the selection process for selection of Senior Machine Man, Etcher Artist, Out Turn Checker and Printing Down Operator, has clarified that merit of the eligible candidates including petitioner and respondent No. 4, was determined separately for the posts they applied for and separate selection lists were forwarded to the concerned department. 8. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. On the stand taken by the Service Selection Recruitment Board respondent No. 5 in the petition, it is abundantly clear that the respondent Board did not determine the merit of aspirants for the posts of Printing Down Operator, Etcher Artist, Senior Machine Man and Out Turn Checker, together and in one go as is tried to be projected by the petitioner. Though the Board called all the short listed candidates for interview/viva-voce on the same date, yet their merit for the posts, advertised was adjudged separately. To illustrate as regards the post of Senior Machine Man, the petitioner obtained 51.76 points as against 44.76 secured by respondent No. 4, neither of the two were selected for the post inasmuch as the selected candidate had 55.60 points to his credit on the basis of the selection criteria prescribed by the Board for the post of Etcher Artist, again merit of all the aspirants were adjudged and the respondent No. 4 obtained 55.76 points on the basis of her academic record and performance in viva voce while as the petitioner obtained only 50.76 points. Resultantly the respondent No. 4 was selected for the post. As regards post of Printing Down Operator, petitioner and respondent No. 4 and all other candidates were considered and their merit determined, petitioner on the basis of academic record and performance in viva voce obtained 61.10 points while as respondent No. 4 secured 47.09 points, the petitioner because of her merit as against the other candidates including respondent No. 4 was selected for Printing Down Operator. 10. 10. The record available on the file belies the petitioner's stand that he had higher merit as against the respondent No. 4 and deserved to be placed ahead of respondent No. 4. The Board as pointed out above did not maintain a single merit list for all the four posts. It on the other hand prepared separate select lists after determining the merit of all the candidates on the basis of academic record and performance in viva-voce. The petitioner had inferior merit as against respondent No. 4 in case of the post of Etcher Artist and higher merit than the respondent No. 4, when their merit was adjudged for the post of Printing Down Operator. Resultantly the Board selected two most meritorious candidates for the two posts i.e. respondent No. 4 for the post of Etcher Artist and petitioner for the Printing Down Operator. 11. The petitioner in the circumstances cannot claim any superior position over the respondent No. 4 as regards merit obtained in the selection process. Petitioner could insist on higher position in the seniority amongst candidates selected as Printing Down Operators on the basis of his merit, had there been more than one candidates selected for the post and all other candidates were inferior in merit i.e. obtained less than 61.10 points in the selection process and not against the respondent No. 4, not selected as Printing Down Operator, but selected against a different post on the basis of different selection criteria. However, no such claim is possible as only one post Printing Down Operator was thrown open for selection. 12. The petitioner is a lone candidate to be selected against the post. There can be no inter-se comparison between the petitioner and respondent No. 4, who have been selected and hold different posts. The respondent while preparing the tentative select list of employees of different Sections of Ranbir Government press, placed respondent No. 4 at serial No. 2 in Processing Section because the post of Etcher Artist held by the respondent No. 4, appears in Schedule II of Jammu and Kashmir Press (subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1980, ahead of post of Printing Down Operator, held by the petitioner. The post of Etcher Artist figures at serial 2-A in Processing Section while as post of printing Down Operator figures at serial No. 2-B in the Processing Section. The post of Etcher Artist figures at serial 2-A in Processing Section while as post of printing Down Operator figures at serial No. 2-B in the Processing Section. In Schedule II to the aforesaid Rules (SRO 145) of 10th April, 1985, the seniority list impugned in the petition therefore, does not infringe any of the rights of petitioner, so as to enable him to maintain the present writ petition and seek quashment of the seniority list. Viewed thus, the petition is held to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.