Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 474 (JK)

Syed Shabir Ahmad v. State Of J&K

2014-11-27

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2014
1. The issues involved in these petitions being almost similar, they are taken up for consideration together, and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The respondent-Services Selection Recruitment Board (for brevity `the Board') issued Notifications inviting applications from the eligible candidates. In the Notifications, besides posts of Teachers some other posts in different departments were also notified. The petitioners being eligible in terms of the Recruitment Rules sought consideration for being selected and appointed on the posts of Teachers in District Cadre Baramulla. 3. The respondent-Board in terms of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 (for short `the Rules of 2010'), which Rule was re-casted, conducted written examination in respect of all the notified posts. On the basis of merit secured by the competing candidates by adopting ratio of 1:5 the respondent-Board called candidates for viva voce, on the basis of their merit secured by them in written examination. 4. The petitioners were not called for interview as they did not secure the requisite merit in the written examination conducted by the respondent-Board in pursuance to (re-cast) Rule 14(1) of the Rules of 2010. 5. The petitioners filed the present writ petitions challenging the action of the respondents. 6. The respondent-Board has filed detailed reply affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of 2010 Rules would mandate that merit secured by the candidates in their 10+2 examination was also required to be considered for short-listing of the candidates. 8. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent-Board in the facts of this case was duty bound to conduct separate examination in respect of the notified posts on the basis of individual notifications, and they having not done the same, the selection process stands vitiated. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent-Board has committed error in conducting common examination in respect of all the posts which were notified, which besides the posts of Teachers also include the posts of Patwaries, Junior Assistants, Village Level Workers etc. etc. Learned counsel further submitted that merit of the candidates could not be adjudged on the basis of such common written examination. 9. Mr. etc. Learned counsel further submitted that merit of the candidates could not be adjudged on the basis of such common written examination. 9. Mr. Tasaduq Khwaja, learned counsel for respondent-Board submitted that all the necessary details about the posts notified and candidates called for interview on the basis of written examination have been given in detail in the reply affidavit. Learned counsel further submitted that after conducting the common written test in accordance with re-cast Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2010 candidates on the basis of their merit secured in the written examination were shortlisted in respect of each Notification independent of the other notifications. Learned counsel also submitted that Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 14 of the re-cast Rules of 2010 has been faithfully complied with by the respondent-Board by adopting the said method for calling the candidates for interview. Learned counsel further submitted that merit secured by the eligible candidates in 10+2 examination or thereafter was to be considered after they were interviewed for preparing the final selection list. Learned counsel submitted that even the merit secured in the written examination of those candidates who were shortlisted has also been considered on the basis of recast Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2010. Learned counsel submitted that the said Rule did not prescribe for considering the merit secured by the candidates at 10+2 level at the stage of shortlisting. Learned counsel also submitted that the Teachers in themselves constitute one single class and their merit was not adjudged alongwith Patwaries, Junior Assistants etc. etc. The candidates who had been selected for being appointed on the post of teachers were treated as a single class and their merit for being shortlisted was adjudged accordingly. 10. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the re-cast Rules of 2010 is taken note of as under: "Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 shall be recast as under: The Services Selection Board shall hold a written test for all the eligible candidates who apply for the advertised post(s). The viva-voce of the eligible candidates shall be conducted by the designated Selection Committee of the Board. The number of candidates to be called for viva-voce shall not be less than three times and more than five times the number of vacancies to be filled up. The viva-voce of the eligible candidates shall be conducted by the designated Selection Committee of the Board. The number of candidates to be called for viva-voce shall not be less than three times and more than five times the number of vacancies to be filled up. The final selection shall be made by the Board on the basis of marks/points obtained in viva-voce added to the marks/points obtained in the written test plus the weightage that may be provided for any higher/additional/special qualification (on pro-rata basis). Provided that where the number of candidates applying for the advertised post(s) is equal to or less than the number of vacancies to be filled up, the written test need not be conducted." 11. Perusal of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 14 of 2010 Rules would show that the respondent-Board is under an obligation to conduct the written test of all the eligible candidates who apply for the advertised posts. This written test, as such, is of universal application to all the eligible candidates who seek consideration for being selected and appointed on the advertised posts. This written examination has to become basis for calling the candidates for interview on the basis of merit secured by them. In this case, admittedly, five candidates in respect of one post have been called for interview. The candidates have been called for interview on the basis of merit secured by them in their written examination. Recast Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of 2010 Rules do not prescribe that for shortlisting of candidates besides the merit secured in the written test, the merit secured at 10+2 level is also to be considered for calling them for interview. The criteria prescribed for making selection has to be followed in respect of those candidates who are shortlisted for being called for interview on the basis of their merit secured in the written examination. This method has been adopted by the respondent-Board after calling the candidates for interview on the basis of merit secured by them in their written examination. The criteria prescribed for making selection has to be followed in respect of those candidates who are shortlisted for being called for interview on the basis of their merit secured in the written examination. This method has been adopted by the respondent-Board after calling the candidates for interview on the basis of merit secured by them in their written examination. The proviso appended to re-cast Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 14 makes it further clear that the merit secured in the written test alone has to be considered for shortlisting of candidates, when it prescribes that where number of candidates applying for the posts is equal to or less than number of vacancies to be filled up, the written test need not be conducted. The written test is, thus, to be conducted only where competing candidates are more in number, than advertised posts. The purpose of conducting written test is only to shortlist the meritorious candidates for being subjected to final selection process. The phraseology employed in the recast Sub-Rule, aforementioned, admits of the only above interpretation. 12. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that merit secured at 10+2 level or afterwards was also to be considered while calling the candidates for interview on the basis of written test cannot be accepted for the above stated reasons in view of the language in which Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 is couched. 13. The respondent-Board has considered the merit of the candidates for being recommended for being appointed on the post of Teachers independently in respect of each individual advertised notification. The course adopted by the respondent-Board is fair and in consonance with the mandate contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No fault can be found in the manner and method adopted by the respondent-Board in this behalf as well. 14. The third argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that besides the candidates who had applied for the posts of Teachers other candidates who had applied for the posts of Patwaries, Junior Assistants etc. were also subjected to one common written test would not affect the selection process, inasmuch as the candidates who had applied for the posts of Teachers were treated as one class and on the basis of their merit secured by them in their written test they were called for interview and selection made on the basis of prescribed criteria. were also subjected to one common written test would not affect the selection process, inasmuch as the candidates who had applied for the posts of Teachers were treated as one class and on the basis of their merit secured by them in their written test they were called for interview and selection made on the basis of prescribed criteria. 15. For the abovestated reasons, these writ petitions being meritless are dismissed alongwith connected CMPs. 16. Interim directions shall also stand vacated.