Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 25 (JK)

Mayur Singh v. State

2018-01-29

ALOK ARADHE

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition is admitted to hearing and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: (a) Writ of certiorari whereby quashing the appointment/selection of the private respondent as Gram Rozgar Sewak, Block Thathri Panchayat Halaran. (b) Writ of mandamus whereby commanding the official respondents to appoint the petitioner as Gram Rozgar Sewak being more meritorious than the private respondent. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the respondents issued Advertisement Notice inviting applications for filling up the post of Gram Rozgar Sewak, Block Thathri. Among others, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 had participated in the process of selection. The petitioner was shown to have secured 47.41 points, whereas respondent No. 5 secured 47.60 points. Accordingly, order of appointment was issued in favour of the private respondent No. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the criteria laid down in the Advertisement Notice, 80 points were to be awarded for the academic qualification and 20 to be awarded for viva voce. However, 5 points have wrongly been awarded to the respondent No. 5 for having worked as a Facilitator under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. In this factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to the Advertisement Notice dated 02.04.2012, submitted that as per the criteria prescribed, evaluation of the candidates was required to be made as 80 points for academic qualification and 20 points for viva voce. However, in flagrant violation of the criteria laid down in the Advertisement Notice, 5 points were awarded to respondent No. 5 for having worked as a Facilitator in MGNREGA, which is not permissible under law and the respondents cannot deviate from the criteria laid down by them. On the other hand, learned Dy. AG while inviting attention of this Court to the Circular dated 14.12.2010 issued by the Secretary to Government Rural Development Department, submitted that on the basis of certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Thathri, 5 marks were awarded to the respondent No. 5. On the other hand, learned Dy. AG while inviting attention of this Court to the Circular dated 14.12.2010 issued by the Secretary to Government Rural Development Department, submitted that on the basis of certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Thathri, 5 marks were awarded to the respondent No. 5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the information received through Right to Information Act from the Block Development Officer vide communication dated 21.08.2012, no such order has been issued from the office of the Block Development Officer, Thathri in favour of respondent No. 5. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, as per the criteria prescribed in the Advertisement Notice, selection was required to be made by awarding the candidates 80 points in the academic qualification and 20 points for the viva voce. In the Advertisement Notice there is no mention of the Circular dated 14.12.2010 issued by the Secretary to Government Rural Development Department. The aforesaid Circular only provides weightage to be given to the candidate having previous experience. No reasons have been assigned for awarding 5 marks to the respondent No. 5 for previous experience. The official respondents cannot be allowed to depart from the criteria laid down by them in the Advertisement Notice. It is not in dispute that in case the 5 marks which have been awarded to the respondent No. 5 on account of previous experience and included in the total marks are deducted, the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No. 5. Despite service, the respondent No. 5 has not chosen to file response to rebut the contentions raised in the writ petition and has been set ex parte. 6. In view of the preceding analysis, selection/appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of Gram Rozgar Sewak cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The same is hereby quashed. The official respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on the post in question in the light of the observations made herein above within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certificate copy of the order passed today. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of along with connected MP.