Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1034 (JK)

Rajnish Proyia v. State of J&K

2017-11-27

ALOK ARADHE

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Since common questions of law and facts arose for consideration in these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. In SWP No.2592/2013, the petitioners inter alia seek quashment of selection and appointment of private respondents as IVth Class Employees in various departments vide selection list published in newspaper by Deputy Commissioner, Kathua vide his no.DIPJ-3076 dated 30.07.2013, on 31.07.2013. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus commanding the official respondents to select and appoint the petitioners as IVth Class employees in District Kathua. In SWP No.1644/2016, the petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for quashing the selection and appointment of private respondents as IVth Class Employees and to select and appoint the petitioner as IVth Class employees in District Kathua. The petitioners in SWP No.1803/2013, have prayed for writ of certiorari for quashing the selection and appointment of private respondents as IVth Class employees in various departments as well as writ of mandamus to command the official respondents to appoint the petitioners on Class IV posts. 3. Facts giving rise to the filing of these writ petitions briefly stated are that the State Government in order to fill up the Class-IV posts on fast tract basis took cabinet Decision on 16.12.2005 and a Government Order No.41-GAD of 2006 dated 09.01.2006 was issued by General Administration Department of State Government. By virtue of the aforesaid Government Order, the Deputy Commissioners of all the Districts were made Chairmen of all the District Level Class-IV appointment Committees. The Deputy Commissioner, Kathua in his capacity as Chairman of District Level Appointment Committee issued an advertisement notice dated 22.04.2006 by which Class-IV posts for various departments were advertised and only candidates belonging to particular district could apply for the posts so advertised as per the GAD Order No. 41 of 2006. The petitioners participated in the process of recruitment and were called for interview between the period from 11.12.2006 to 12.01.2007. However, the name of the petitioners could not find place in the select list and it is the case of the petitioners that the candidates who are less meritorious than the petitioners were got selected by the Selection Committee. The petitioners have given the details of the candidates in Para 4 of the SWP No.2592/2013, who have been selected by the Selection Committee even though they were ineligible. The petitioners have given the details of the candidates in Para 4 of the SWP No.2592/2013, who have been selected by the Selection Committee even though they were ineligible. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. A bench of this Court vide order dated 13.10.2016 had directed the respondents to produce the merit list prepared for district Kathua in pursuance of the advertisement notice dated 22.04.2006. In compliance of the aforesaid Order, Mrs. Seema Shekhar, learned Sr. AAG has produced the relevant record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the aforesaid select list has been prepared in compliance of the directions issued by Division Bench of this Court, however, the select list is not in conformity with the criteria of eligibility prescribed in the advertisement notice dated 22.04.2006 and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Sr. AAG was unable to point out from the record that the aforesaid select list has been prepared in accordance with the criteria prescribed in the advertisement notice. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is no doubt true that the employer has the right to lay down the criteria for selection of a candidate, however, once the criteria is laid down for selection of the candidate, no departure from the same is permissible. From perusal of the record produced before me, it is evident that the aforesaid select list has been prepared in violation of the criteria laid down in the advertisement notice inasmuch as respondents 21 to 40 do not fulfill the criteria laid down in the advertisement notice. The details are as under: Sr. No. Name Percentage in class 8th (%) Percentage in class 10th (%) Allocated Academic Marks out of 50 Allocated Interview Marks out of 150 1. Khilwar Badal S/o Isher Das (Sr. No.7, of select list in PHE department) Sr. No.44 in Merit List 29.30 45 143 2. Pardeep Kumar Bali S/o Bishamber Dass (Sr. No.11, of select list in School education department) Sr. No.60 in Merit List 30.80 45 141 3. Tarsem Lal S/o Bal Mukand (Sr. No.2, of select list in H&M education department) 32.27 45 141 4 Dilawar Singh S/o Raghbir Singh (Sr. No.5, of select list in Animal Husbandry department) Sr. Pardeep Kumar Bali S/o Bishamber Dass (Sr. No.11, of select list in School education department) Sr. No.60 in Merit List 30.80 45 141 3. Tarsem Lal S/o Bal Mukand (Sr. No.2, of select list in H&M education department) 32.27 45 141 4 Dilawar Singh S/o Raghbir Singh (Sr. No.5, of select list in Animal Husbandry department) Sr. No.70 in Merit List 31.73 33.60 48 132 5 Zalim Singh S/o Ananat Ram (Sr. No.13, of select list in school education department) Sr. No.76 in Merit List 27.8 45 141 6 Mohd. Ayoub S/o Sh. Mohd Hussain (Sr. No.6, of select list in Forest Department) Sr. No.81 in Merit List 29.50 45 140 7 Gurdeep Singh S/o Atma Singh (Sr. No.09, of select list in revenue department Sr. No.83 in Merit List 30.00 45 140 8 Rajesh Kumar S/o Baldev Raj (Sr. No.10, of select list in revenue department) Sr. No.84 in Merit List 32.80 45 140 9 Vinod Kumar S/o Amit Chand (Sr. No.1 of select list in Election Department) Sr. No.94 in Merit List 30.77 45 140 10 Sanjay Kumar S/o Kundu Ram (Sr. No.2, of select list in School Education Department) Sr. No.4 in Merit List 36.40 36.00 48 139 11 Ramesh Singh S/O Sh. Bali Ram, (Sr. No.2 of select list in revenue department) Sr. No.26 in Merit List 33.29 34.09 48 135 12. Naresh Kumar S/o Dewan Chand (Sr. No.3, of select list in PWD (R&B) Department) Sr. No.27 in Merit List 31.20 34.75 48 135 13. Subash Chander S/o Waryam Singh (Sr. No.3, of select list in Forest Department) Sr. No.29 in Merit List 30.98 40.88 48 135 14. Ram Krishan S/o Munshi (Sr. No.4, of Select list in PHE department) Sr. No.39 in Merit List 32.67 45 143 15. Ajay Choudhary S/o Mohinder Singh (Sr. No.1, of select list in H&M Education department) Sr. No.42 in Merit List 32.00 37.20 48 134 16. Jatinder Sambyal S/o Suraj Singh (Sr. No.2, of select list in Animal Husbandry department) Sr. No.43 in Merit List 36.35 45 143 17 Bippen Kumar S/o Nek Chand (Sr. No.8, of select list in PHE department) Sr. No.50 in Merit List 32.67 39.40 48 133 18 Kuldeep Singh S/o Kaka Ram, (Sr. No.12, of select list in PHE department) Sr. No.55 in Merit List 24.93 39.60 48 133 19 Nirmal Singh Pathania S/o Chanchal Singh Pathania (Sr. No.8, of select list in PHE department) Sr. No.50 in Merit List 32.67 39.40 48 133 18 Kuldeep Singh S/o Kaka Ram, (Sr. No.12, of select list in PHE department) Sr. No.55 in Merit List 24.93 39.60 48 133 19 Nirmal Singh Pathania S/o Chanchal Singh Pathania (Sr. No.7, of select list in revenue department) 33.40 45 141 20 Raj Kumar S/o Krishan Chand (Sr. No.20, of select list in PHE department) 36.90 45 140 7. Thus, respondents 21 to 40 are not eligible in terms of the criteria laid down in the advertisement notice. Therefore, their appointments cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is, accordingly, quashed. Official respondents are directed to redraw the select list strictly in terms of the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement notice and thereafter to complete the process of selection. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of two months from today. With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions are disposed of along with connected MPs.