Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 649 (JK)

State of J & K v. Surinder Singh

2018-08-24

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : D.S. Thakur -J 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.10.2017, passed by the Writ Court in SWP No.2947/2015. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:- 3. An advertisement notice dated 08.05.2008 was issued by the Services Selection Board inviting eligible candidates inter alia for filling up of 14 posts of Horticulture Technician –IV for District Cadre Doda, Poonch, Kathua, Jammu and Udhampur in the Horticulture Department. The basic eligibility for the said post was 10+2 with one year Basic Horticulture training. 4. Petitioners/respondents herein are all possessed of Diploma in Horticulture from National Centre for Vocational Training, Muzzaffar Nagar. The Services Selection Board having found them meritorious and eligible recommended their cases for appointment to the Government. The Government, however, was not satisfied with regard to the diplomas possessed by the petitioners, inasmuch as, they thought that the same had not been recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) or for that matter by any Cooperative Society. It was also felt by the Government that the nomenclature of the training course was also inappropriate. 5. It appears that the matter remained pending with the Government for a period of approximately two years, which forced the petitioners to approach the Writ Court by way of SWP bearing No. 1310/2013. In this writ petition, the Court by virtue of judgment and order 05.06.2013 directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment. Pursuant to the said directions, cases of the petitioners were rejected vide order dated 12.10.2015, which was subsequently challenged by the writ petitioner in SWP bearing No. 2947/2013. This writ petition was allowed of by virtue of judgment and order dated 04.10.2017 and the order impugned dated 12.10.2015 was quashed with a direction to the respondents to issue orders of appointment in favour of the petitioners. It is this order, which has been challenged in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Mr. Sawhney, learned AAG urged that the view taken by the Writ Court was erroneous in law. It was further urged that the Court below had failed to appreciate the fact that the Government retained to itself the right to even refuse the appointments notwithstanding the fact that the selection authority had made a recommendation in their favour. 6. Mr. Sawhney, learned AAG urged that the view taken by the Writ Court was erroneous in law. It was further urged that the Court below had failed to appreciate the fact that the Government retained to itself the right to even refuse the appointments notwithstanding the fact that the selection authority had made a recommendation in their favour. It was further urged that merely because the name of the petitioners figured in the select list did not create any indefeasible right in favour of the petitioners to get appointed. It was urged that it was a pre-requisite for the petitioners to be possessing the eligibility qualification of Diploma in Horticulture, which the petitioners did not possess. It was reiterated that the Diploma had not been recognized by the ICAR and, therefore, the Government had rightly rejected their cases for appointment. 7. The issue as to whether the Diploma possessed by the petitioners were not at all required to be recognized by the ICAR has been answered by communication dated 10.07.2014 addressed by the Assistant Director General (EQR) of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, which reads thus:- “F. No. Edn.6/4/2014-EQR Dated : 10th July, 2014 To Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir, Horticulture Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu & Kashmir Government, Srinagar (J&K) – 192202. Subject:- One year diploma in Horticulture conferred by National Centre for Vocational Training, Muzzaffarnagar -–recognition by ICAR-reg: Sir, Please refer to your letter dated 5th June, 2014 on the subject cited above, in this regard, it is stated that ICAR neither recognize National Centre for Vocational Training, Muzzaffarnagar nor its degree i.e. one year diploma in horticulture. The Council has no such mandate. Yours faithfully, sd/- (Alok Jha) Assistant Director General (EQR).” 8. We may also refer to communication dated 04.04.2014, issued by the Agriculture Production Department of Government of Uttar Pradesh and addressed to the Deputy Secretary to Government, Agriculture Production Department, Jammu & Kashmir to the effect that one year Horticulture Diploma Course awarded through National Centre for Vocational Training, Muzzafarnagar (UP) was job oriented and, therefore, eligible for appointment as Technician Assistant in Government and non-Government organizations. It thus appears to us that even the Government of Uttar Pradesh also recognizes the institute, which has otherwise issued by the Diplomas in favour of the petitioners/respondents herein. It thus appears to us that even the Government of Uttar Pradesh also recognizes the institute, which has otherwise issued by the Diplomas in favour of the petitioners/respondents herein. Even the ICAR’s communication dated 10.07.2014 is clear that the said organization did not have any mandate to recognize the institute in question. 9. If that be so, then the Government has failed to bring on record any document, which would suggest that the Diplomas being possessed by the petitioners were in any manner invalid or were not to be accepted for purposes of appointment. The government only appears to have conducted a roving inquiry, for which it has taken more than six years from the date when the names of the petitioners figured in the select list in the year 2012. If that be so, then the order of rejection dated 12.10.2015 was rightly quashed by the Writ Court. 10. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a view different from one taken by the learned Single Judge. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant Letters Patent Appeal is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected IA.