Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 150 (JK)

VIJAY SINGH v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

2017-03-22

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner appears to have applied for the post of Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Auxiliary Police, pursuant to an advertisement notification dt. 3.2.2009, issued by the Director General of Police, J&K The educational qualification, age and physical standard was prescribed as under : "i. Educational qualification Candidates must have passed at least matriculation examination from recognized institution. ii. Age as on Jan., 1st. 2009 Candidates should not less than 18 years and not more than 28 years of age. (The candidates born before 01.01.1981 and after 31.12.1990 shall not be eligible. iii. Physical standard Height-5'6" and above. Chest(unexpanded) 32" (Expanded) = 33-1/2"" 2. Since the additional qualification did not form the part of the notification in question, the Director General of Police, J&K, Jammu, issued an addendum to the advertisement notification dated 23.3.2009, prescribing the additional qualification as under:- "i. Valid Driving licence ii. Diploma in typing/shorthand iii. Diploma in computer (from any recognized college/ITI iv. Technical qualification (Diploma)" 3. The petitioner participated in the selection process and submitted a Computer Diploma claiming to have been issued by a recognized Institute for which he was awarded two additional marks in accordance with the selection criteria fixed. Subsequently, however, the official respondents found that two marks ought not to have been granted to the petitioner as the Diploma submitted by him appeared to have not been issued by a recognized Institute as was intimated to the said respondents by the Secretary, State Board of Technical Education, Jammu, that the Dynamic Institute of Information and Technology (DIIT), 146, Jammu Partapgarh, Jammu, is neither registered nor affiliated with the J&K State Board of Technical Education. 4. However, since the name of the petitioner figured at Sl.No.4, in the RBA category with 24 marks, after the deduction of two additional marks earlier granted on account of the Computer Diploma in question, his merit fell to 22, and thus, below the last cut-off point. It was on that account that the petitioner Was refused appointment and hence the present petition. 5. It needs to be noticed that the petitioner did not, at any point of time, before the issuance of the select list dt. 2.4.2012, question the mode and manner of conduct of selection process including the issuance of addendum dt. 23.3.2009, on the ground that the additional qualification not having been prescribed in the earlier notification dt. 5. It needs to be noticed that the petitioner did not, at any point of time, before the issuance of the select list dt. 2.4.2012, question the mode and manner of conduct of selection process including the issuance of addendum dt. 23.3.2009, on the ground that the additional qualification not having been prescribed in the earlier notification dt. 3.2.2009, could not have been incorporated subsequently and that the selection process ought to have been conducted strictly as per the earlier notification. This argument cannot be permitted to be raised after the conclusion of the selection process. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court reported as Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043 , wherein the Apex Court held as under: "..Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realized that he would not succeed in the examination ...." 6. This view was subsequently followed in the case reported as Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. v. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors., (2016) 1 SCC 454 . 7. The petitioner in the present case, responded to the addendum issued by the official respondents and, accordingly, submitted his Computer Diploma as an additional qualification and was well aware of the fact that two additional points are to be granted in this regard, which additional points were deducted after the Diploma submitted by the petitioner was not found to be issued by a recognized Institute. Therefore, after having appeared in the selection process, he cannot turn around and challenge the same on the ground that the said process should have been conducted strictly in accordance with the earlier notification. 8. Having considered the entire issue in the light of the facts of the case mentioned here-in-above as also the ratio of judgments supra, I find that the present petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.