Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 280 (JK)

Gulzar Ahmad Dhobi v. State of J&K & Ors.

2015-05-29

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2015
JUDGMENT Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. – The petitioner, working as a Gardner in the Government Horticulture Department, has challenged Government order no. 351-Agri of 2013 dated 24.10.2013 whereby the Government accorded sanction to the deputation/nomination of, inter alia, respondents 5 to 8 as in service candidates of Horticulture/Agriculture Department for undergoing B. Sc. Agriculture course during the Sessions 2013-14 at Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Srinagar. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to recommend his name for undergoing the said course. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Mali in the year 1997 and has undergone one year Mali course. Besides, his academic qualification is 10+2 having secured 298 marks of out 600 equalling to 49.6%. He also claims to be belonging to socially low caste, but even on the date of the present writ petition, his case for issue of the Category certificate was still pending. 3. It appears that the Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST), Jammu and Srinagar have reserved some percentage of seats in the Under-graduate courses of B. Sc. Agriculture for the in service candidates of the Agricultural/Horticulture Department of the Government. In that connection, respondent no.1, Secretary to Government, Agriculture Production Department, sought service particulars of such in service candidates as were desirous of undergoing the aforesaid course at the aforesaid Universities. It further appears that the Eligibility criterion as prescribed by the two Universities was as under: "10+2 or equivalent examination from any recognised statutory Board/University with not less than 50% marks in aggregate for General Category and 40% for Reserved Category in the following: i. Physics, Chemistry, Biology (PCB) and English; ii. Agriculture with Science subjects and English. " The petitioner offered service particulars for his candidature/nomination. However, the Government by the impugned order nominated and deputed respondents 5 to 8 to undergo the requisite course at SKUAST, Srinagar. Agriculture with Science subjects and English. " The petitioner offered service particulars for his candidature/nomination. However, the Government by the impugned order nominated and deputed respondents 5 to 8 to undergo the requisite course at SKUAST, Srinagar. The petitioner has challenged the same, inter alia, on the grounds that he belongs to the reserved category of Social Cast, therefore, had to be given preference over others or was entitled to be considered on the basis of relaxed standard of merit; that respondents 5 to 8 were junior to him, therefore, they could not have been selected for nomination; that respondent no.5 is inferior in merit to him, inasmuch as the said respondent had obtained only 254 marks out of 600, i.e., which works out to 43.2 %; whereas the petitioner had secured 49.6% marks. The petitioner claims that the criterion adopted by the official respondents in formulating the select list is violative of his fundamental rights. 4. The respondents in their objections/reply have stated that respondent no. 5 has not been selected nor deputed for undergoing the said course. However, so far as respondents 6 to 8 are concerned, it is stated that they were selected, deputed and nominated for undergoing such course on the basis of their merit. It is averred that the name of the petitioner was also included in the panel of candidates and sent to the Government for consideration, but he could not make the grade on account of his having secured lower merit in 10+2 Examination than respondents 6 to 8. It is also stated that candidates having even higher merit than the petitioner could not make the grade. As to the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to reserved category of Social Caste, it is submitted that the petitioner did not produce any such certificate at the time the selections were made. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and considered the matter. 6. Perusal of the annexure to the impugned order reveals that only three candidates, namely, Showkat Hamid Shah, Mohammad Manzoor Guroo and Sartaj-idul-Amin, i.e., respondents 6 to 8 herein were selected for undergoing B. Sc. Agriculture for SKUAST, Kashmir. Their merit at 10+2 level, respectively, is shown to be 54%, 52% and 50.75%. Admittedly, the petitioner had secured only 49.6% marks at 10+2 level examination. Agriculture for SKUAST, Kashmir. Their merit at 10+2 level, respectively, is shown to be 54%, 52% and 50.75%. Admittedly, the petitioner had secured only 49.6% marks at 10+2 level examination. His plea that he possessed superior merit than the said respondents is belied by the document placed on record by none other than the petitioner himself. That apart, his plea that respondent no.5, despite having lower merit than him, was selected and nominated, is a totally false. 7. Coming to the plea that the respondents 6 to 8 were junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Malies, it hardly needs a mention that the petitioner himself has reproduced in paragraph 5 of the writ petition the eligibility criterion laid down by the two Universities. Seniority position of the in service candidates, admittedly, is not a condition of eligibility prescribed by the two Universities. The plea has been taken for the sake of it. 8. Coming to the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to the Social Cast Category and, therefore, had a preference over others or that his merit had to be determined and considered on the relaxed standard, viz. 40% marks, it would suffice to mention here that on his own showing even on the date of filing of this writ petition he did not possess the requisite certificate. The petitioner, with a view to substantiating his plea that he, in fact, belongs to the reserved category, produced a photocopy of the category certificate during the course of arguments. It is worthy of notice that the impugned order was issued on 24.10.2013. This writ petition was presented before the Registry on 01.11.2013. The date of issue of the aforesaid certificate, as produced before this Court, is recorded as 07.11.2013. That means on all relevant dates, including on the date the selection of candidates for nomination/deputation for the course was made, the petitioner was not in possession of the said certificate. Therefore, he cannot have a grouse or grievance against any of the respondents for his failure and inability to produce the requisite category certificate at the relevant time. 9. Even if it be assumed that he could have been considered under the reserved category of Social Caste, yet he could not have been selected for nomination against that reserved category. Therefore, he cannot have a grouse or grievance against any of the respondents for his failure and inability to produce the requisite category certificate at the relevant time. 9. Even if it be assumed that he could have been considered under the reserved category of Social Caste, yet he could not have been selected for nomination against that reserved category. This is so for the simple reason that there were only three seats to be filled in by nomination. Rule 13 of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005 framed by the Government in exercise of powers conferred on it by Section 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004, prescribes reservation of 2% seats in the courses of professional institutions for the candidates belonging to Social Caste Category. 2% of 3 seats would, naturally, come to only 0.06% which for all practical purposes is far, far less than half. That being the position, the claim of the petitioner on that count is unfounded and untenable. 10. For all what has been discussed above, the petitioner cannot claim violation of any of his rights, much less his fundamental rights. The petition has been filed without any cause. Resultantly, no ground for admission of the writ petition is made out. 11. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine together with the connected CMPs. 12. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.