Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 506 (JK)

Brijesh Kumar Pandey v. State

2017-08-01

B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner, who claims to be having a Master Degree in Sahitya stream as also in Vedas (Annexure B), besides being B.Ed has challenged the select list of temporary engagement of Pujaris issued by respondent No.4 vide order No.SASB/20174/36 to 61 dated 24.04.2017 on the ground that proforma respondents have been illegally engaged in gross violation of merit and the petitioner has not been engaged despite being competent, eligible, meritorious and experienced person. 2. Although copy of select list referred to above is attached along with the writ petition as Annexure-D, yet for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the selected candidates whose engagement has been challenged have not been impleaded as respondents. 3. On 31.07.2017, learned counsel for Shri. Amar Nath Ji Shrine Board ( for short ‘Shrine Board’) had undertaken to produce the record to show that the writ petition was mis-conceived and liable to be dismissed in limine without even issuance of notice and the matter was kept on Board for today. 4. Today, learned counsel for the Shrine Board has produced brief submissions on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 contending therein that the petitioner participated in the selection process for being engaged as Pujari for a limited period of 40 days on remuneration of Rs.500/- per day for performance of puja and other rituals at holy cave of Shri Amarnath Ji and was fully evaluated by the Selection Committee constituted for the said purpose, but was not found suitable for being engaged as one of the 24 temporary pujaries engaged for the said purpose on the basis of inter-se merit upon assessment of his performance in the interview. Consequently, the petitioner was not appointed on account of not being found within the zone of merit for being appointed as Pujari. The Selection Committee selected 24 persons, whereas the name of the petitioner figures at S.No.33 of the merit list. 5. Having participated in the selection process and not making the grade, it was not open to the petitioner to contend that he was more meritorious than the other persons who were found suitable for the selection and appointment on temporary basis for 40 days. 6. 5. Having participated in the selection process and not making the grade, it was not open to the petitioner to contend that he was more meritorious than the other persons who were found suitable for the selection and appointment on temporary basis for 40 days. 6. Learned counsel for the Shrine Board contends that in the year 2017, it was decided to adopt a transparent procedure for the better management and up-gradation facilities for the pilgrims and to do away the past practice of allowing the same pujaries to do performance of puja and with a view to provide opportunities to all the meritorious and suitable persons, Selection Committee comprising of following members was constituted for selection of 24 pujaries for the engagement for 40 days period of holy yatra on remuneration of Rs.500/- per day: (i). Dr. Ved Kumari Ghai, Chairperson. A renowned Sanskrit scholar from India, Former Head of Department (Sanskrit) Jammu University Awards and Honours: Padma Shri (She has been awarded Padma Shri, the fourth highest civilian honour in the country in 2014) Recipient of certificate of Honour from the President of India for scholarship in Sanskrit Shri Shakti Award in 2010. Lifetime Achievement Award in 2009. Dogra Ratan Award in 2005 President’s Award for Sanskrit in 1997 Gold Medal for Social work by Government of Jammu and Kashmir in 1997. (ii). Prof. Vishwa Murti Shastri, Member, Former Principal, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Deemed University, Kot Bhalwal Jammu Recipient of President’s Award. (iii). Dr. Chander Mouli Raina Member Associate Professor, Department of Astrology Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Deemed University, Kot Bhalwal Jammu. (iv). Shri Devinder Rajal, Member Senior Acharya Gurukul Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Katra. (v). Shri Parshotam Kumar Member Secretary Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Shri Amarnath Ji Shrine Board (Retired Special Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir). 7. Learned counsel for the Shrine Board contends that the aforementioned members of the Selection Committee were renowned personalities with outstanding credentials and one of them was awarded Padma Shri while the other member was former Principal, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Deemed University, Kot Bhalwal Jammu (recipient of President’s award). One of the members was Associate Professor, Department of Astrology Rasthrtiya Sanskrit Sansthan, Deemed University, Kotbhalwal Jammu besides two others are Senior Acharya Gurukul Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Katra and Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Shri Amarnath Ji Shrine Board (retired Special Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir). One of the members was Associate Professor, Department of Astrology Rasthrtiya Sanskrit Sansthan, Deemed University, Kotbhalwal Jammu besides two others are Senior Acharya Gurukul Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Katra and Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Shri Amarnath Ji Shrine Board (retired Special Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir). Learned counsel further contends that apart from assessing the academic qualification, the clarity in orientation of Vedic mantras and their correct pronunciation was the relevant factor which was fully evaluated by the Selection Committee referred to above and it was on the basis of inter-se performance of all the candidates that 24 candidates who were found to be more meritorious as per the Select List Annexure D were selected and engaged on remuneration of Rs.500/- per day for duration of 40 days only for the period commencing with the start of Amarnath Yatra and up to the period of conclusion of the same. The petitioner being at S.No.33 of the select list was not entitled to be appointed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was selected and appointed earlier in the year 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, and he had sufficient knowledge and experience, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have appointed him. 9. Allegations have been levelled against the members of the Selection Committee, namely Sh. Chander Moli Raina and Sh. Vishva Murthi Sharma on the ground that they adopted pick and choose method and engaged only their kiths, kins and even students who were working for them. Although allegations of malafide exercise of powers have been levelled against Sh. Chander Moli Raina and Sh. Vishva Murthi Sharma, yet the said persons have not been impleaded as party respondents. That apart, as per record referred to above, the Selection Committee comprised of not only two members, details of whom have been referred to above and the same reveals that all the five persons are persons of repute with impeccable credentials and the selection has not been made only on the basis of recommendations of aforementioned two persons as alleged by the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has also alleged that big fraud has been played by engaging the persons as Pujaries as neither they were having any degree in the concerned field nor were experienced persons in comparison to the petitioner who is more meritorious person. 11. 10. The petitioner has also alleged that big fraud has been played by engaging the persons as Pujaries as neither they were having any degree in the concerned field nor were experienced persons in comparison to the petitioner who is more meritorious person. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Shrine Board contends that the selection was not made only on the basis of academic qualification and experience, but was made on the clarity in orientation of Vedic mantras and their correct pronunciation which was one of the relevant factors which was fully evaluated by the Selection Committee constituted for the selection of Pujaris for the duration of holy yatra. 12. The field of assessment with regard to the orientation of vedic mantras and their correct pronunciation is a field exclusively in the domain of the experts. The Selection Committee comprised of renowned Sanskrit scholars apart from other experts and one of them is Padma Shri-recipient of certificate of Honour from the President of India-Shri Shakti Award-Lifetime Achievement Award, Dogra Ratan Award-President’s award for Sanskrit- Gold Medal for Social work by Government of Jammu and Kashmir etc. In the circumstances, it is not for any other person to substitute his views for the views of the experts in the field to arrived at a different conclusion. To do so would amount to usurp the field which lies within the domain of experts. 13. The petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a learned person and had worked with Sh. Adhi Shankaracharayia and had educated three hundred students, therefore, he is a experienced teacher in the concerned field. 14. The mere fact that the petitioner has not been selected does not, in any way, imply that the petitioner is not a meritorious and experienced teacher for Acharya. In fact, that is not the stand of the respondents. It is only that in the light of the parameters followed by the Selection Committee for evaluation of inter se merit, the petitioner did not figure amongst the list of 24 candidates who were eventually selected for engagement as Pujaries on temporary basis for a period of 40 days on a remuneration of 500/- per day. 15. It is only that in the light of the parameters followed by the Selection Committee for evaluation of inter se merit, the petitioner did not figure amongst the list of 24 candidates who were eventually selected for engagement as Pujaries on temporary basis for a period of 40 days on a remuneration of 500/- per day. 15. Although the petitioner has also alleged that out of 24 selected pujaris most are from Akhnoor belt and the same has been attributed by the petitioner on account of one of the members of the Selection Committee being belonging to the same area and on that basis, it has been alleged that pick and choose method for engagement of Pujaris has been adopted, but no details in respect thereto has been given. 16. The allegations are vague and vexatious. Likewise, allegation has been levelled that one of the selected Pujari was caught doing illegal activity and was dropped for two consecutive years, but again no detail has been mentioned. The petitioner further states that he has also filed representation, but the same has not been decided. 17. In the light of the position as noted above, no case is made out warranting intervention by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. However, respondents may consider the representation of the petitioner for engagement as Pujari as per merit.