Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 58 (JK)

J&K SSRB v. Sanjay Kumar

2014-02-13

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, M.M.Kumar

body2014
M.M. Kumar, CJ. 1. The J&K Service Selection Recruitment Board through its Secretary has challenged the judgment and order dated 06.07.2001 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the training for appointment to the posts of Co-operative Supervisors in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- was essential qualification. Therefore the Writ Court held that the selection and appointment of private respondents was in violation of the advertisement notice dated 29.04.1997 issued for filling up of the posts of Co-operative Supervisors. The learned Writ Court, however, did not set aside the appointment of selected candidate on that ground and issued directions to the appellant-Board to recommend the name of the writ petitioner-respondent for selection and appointment. In that regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of H.C. Puttaswamy and ors v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Bangalore and ors, AIR 1991 SC 295 . The petitioner was held entitled to monetary benefits if the appointment order was not issued within a period of three months from the date a copy of order passed by the learned Writ Court was received. 2. On the appeal filed by the appellant-Board along with CMA no. 395/2001, the operation of the judgment was stayed by the Letters Patent Bench on 16.10.2001. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the record with their able assistance. 4. In order to decide the controversy, it would first be appropriate to notice few facts. An advertisement notice bearing no. 3 of 1997 was issued on 29.04.1997 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Co-operative Supervisors which is a District Cadre post. The posts of Co-operative Supervisors figured in the advertisement notice at serial no. 69 and the following qualifications were required to be fulfilled: "69.District Supervisors (950-1500) Cooperative Department (10+2) Hr. Secondary Part II Cooperative training will be necessary for selected candidates. Baramulla 08 Anantnag 08 Srinagar 07 Budgam 07 Pulwama 07 Kupwara 07 Jammu 07 Udhampur 08 Doda 08 Rajouri 07 Kathua 07 Poonch 07 88 5. It is evident from the perusal of the advertisement that a candidate was required to have 10+2 or Hr. Secondary Part II. It is further clarified that a selected candidate would be obliged to undergo Cooperative Training. It is evident from the perusal of the advertisement that a candidate was required to have 10+2 or Hr. Secondary Part II. It is further clarified that a selected candidate would be obliged to undergo Cooperative Training. The stand of the writ petitioner-respondent was that the advertisement notice necessitated the possession of Diploma in Cooperative Training as a necessary qualification which private respondents lacked and therefore their appointment was liable to be set aside. The argument raised by the appellant-Board was that there is no such essential qualification that a candidate must have a Diploma in Cooperative Training. It was further the case of the appellant that the writ petitioner-respondent obtained 48.49 points as against the last selected candidate who secured 55.45 points. Therefore, being far lower in merit, he cannot claim selection and appointment. 6. The advertisement notice in unmistakable term states that the Co-operative Training would be necessary for a selected candidate. It does not laid down a condition precedent of eligibility for appointment to the post of Cooperative Supervisor. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is not acceptable when it find that the stand of the appellant-Board was contrary to the qualification advertised on 29.04.1997. Moreover, the petitioner has acquired 48.49 points as against the last selected candidate who had secured 55.45 points. If the directions for appointment of the writ petitioner were to issued then it would mean all the candidates figuring between the name of the writ petitioner and the last selected candidate would be deprived of their rights to be considered for selection and appointment on the post of Co-operative Supervisors. Such a course would, in fact, results in flagrant violation of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The view taken by the learned Writ Court, therefore, cannot be sustained and is thus liable to be reversed. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal succeeds. The judgment and order dated 06.07.2001 rendered in SWP no.917 of 1998 is hereby set aside and the writ petition filed by writ petitioner is dismissed. 8. CMA no. 395/2001 shall also stand disposed of.