Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 454 (JK)

Rahul Sharma v. State

2017-07-27

B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Grievance of the petitioner is that having applied for the post of Technical Assistant under RBA category in the Housing and Urban Development Department pursuant to advertisement (Annexure-A) dated 10.10.2013 and despite being the sole candidate from RBA category has not been interviewed in view of order of stay dated 18.12.2015 in SWP No. 3198/2015 granted by this Court restraining the respondents from declaring the result of one post of Technical Assistant in OM category. 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is the only candidate belonging to the RBA Category who was called for interview and even in view of the order of this Court dated 18.12.2015 in SWP No. 3198/2015 restraining declaration of result of one post of Technical Assistant in OM category, there is no reason as to why petitioner should not be interviewed. More so since this Court vide order dated 20.04.2017 in SWP No. 912/2017, clarified that interim direction dated 18.12.2015 in SWP No. 3198/2015 related to only one post in OM category and not to selection process on the whole. 3. Per contra Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Dy. AG states that the petitioner has not been interviewed, in view of the restraint order dated 18.12.2015 in order to meet the situation that in case, a candidate belonging to the reserved category secures more marks than the candidate of the OM category, then such candidate of the reserved category has to be appointed in the OM Category. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even in the aforementioned situation there is no reason whatsoever to withhold interviewing of the petitioner since the benefit if accruing for appointment to the OM category in such a situation would go to the petitioner only being the sole candidate of the reserved category called for interview. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the aforementioned position, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to conduct interview of the candidate belonging to the reserved category and to declare their result in accordance with rules. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the aforementioned position, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to conduct interview of the candidate belonging to the reserved category and to declare their result in accordance with rules. It is however, made clear that if any of the candidates who are interviewed are found fit for appointment against the reserved category, if on subsequent declaration of result of the candidate belonging to the OM category are found to be having more marks than the candidate of the OM category, then in that eventuality it would be open to the official respondents to take appropriate action in terms of Section 9 and Rule 17 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004 and J&K Reservation Rules, 2005. 6. With the aforementioned terms, the writ petition stands disposed of.