Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 854 (JK)

Mayur Singh v. State

2018-10-26

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2018
ORDER : Sanjeev Kumar, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the 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 officials respondents to appoint the petitioner as Gram Rozgar Sewak being more meritorious than private respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that respondent No. 3 vide Advertisement Notification (Annexure-A) invited applications for engagement of supporting staff, dedicated to MGNREGA on need basis which, inter alia, included 24 posts in Block Thathri. One post was to be supplied in Panchayat Halqa Halaran. Apart from others, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 participated in the selection process. The petitioners and respondent No. 5 along with three more candidates were interviewed by the Committee. Accordingly, final merit of the candidates for the post of Gram Rozgar Sewak in Panchayat Halqa Halaram was determined in the following manner: S.No. Form No. Name of Candidate Panchayat Academic Points Viva Voce Final Points 1 140 Mayur Singh s/o Mohinder Singh Halaran 34.1 13.25 47.41 2. 68 Akash Kumar S/o Jagdish Kumar Halaran 34.01 13.00 17.41 3. 202 Ashraf Ali S/o Shoket Ali Mir Halaran 32.17 11.75 43.92 4. 1594 Shameema Akhter S/o Mohd. Hadatyatullah Halaran 30.60 14.00 44.60 5. 49 Sanjay Kumar S/o Nath Ram Halaran 29.60 18.00 47.60 3. Respondent No. 5 with the highest merit of 47.60 was engaged as Gram Rozgar Sewak, Panchayat Halqa Halram. The petitioner with merit points 47.41 being the next in the order of merit felt aggrieved and, thus, approached this Court through the medium of the instant writ petition. The selection of respondent No. 5 has been assailed by the petitioner, primarily, on the ground that his academic merit has not been properly evaluated, in that, going by his percentage of marks as indicated in the marks card of 10+2, respondent No. 5 would be entitled to only 24.60 points. If that error deliberately or otherwise committed by the respondents is rectified, the petitioner would be the most meritorious candidate entitled to be appointed as GRS in the Panchayat Halqa concerned. This is the pith and substance of the challenge thrown by the petitioner to the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5. 4. If that error deliberately or otherwise committed by the respondents is rectified, the petitioner would be the most meritorious candidate entitled to be appointed as GRS in the Panchayat Halqa concerned. This is the pith and substance of the challenge thrown by the petitioner to the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5. 4. The official respondents have filed their objections. It is their stand that so far as the academic merit of respondent No. 5 is concerned, same would undoubtedly come to 24.60, but he has been awarded five additional points for the experience and this is how his academic merit points have gone to 29.60. It is also stated by the official respondents that pursuant to Circular No. 15-RD-NREGA of 2010 dated 14.12.2010, the official respondents had notified the selection criteria vide notification dated 02.04.2012. It is submitted that this criteria was well notified for the information of all and the petitioner without throwing any challenge to the aforesaid criteria participated in the selection process without any objection or demur and has not assailed the same even after finding that he has not been selected. It is urged that in the absence of challenge to the selection criteria, the selection of respondent No. 5 cannot be found fault with. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that in the absence of challenge to the selection criteria adopted by the respondents for making selection in question, the selection of respondent No. 5, made on the basis of aforesaid criteria, cannot be found fault with. 6. It is not in dispute that the selection criteria adopted during the selection was properly notified before undertaking the process of interview. None including the petitioner raised any objection to the notified criteria. Accordingly, respondents made the selection. The petitioner, who could not make it to the selection list in view of his merit, cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the selection criteria only after finding the result of selection unpalatable to him. Law in this regard is well settled. (See D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom, decided by the Supreme Court on 13 September, 2017) 7. That apart, the petitioner has not specifically called in question the selection criteria notified vide circular dated 02.04.2012 (supra). Law in this regard is well settled. (See D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom, decided by the Supreme Court on 13 September, 2017) 7. That apart, the petitioner has not specifically called in question the selection criteria notified vide circular dated 02.04.2012 (supra). In the absence of specific challenge to the selection criteria, the selection of respondent No. 5 cannot be found fault with. The selection criterion clearly envisages five points for the experience. It is because of this five points which were awarded to respondent No. 5 he became a candidate having highest merit in the Panchayat Halqa concerned. His total tally of points came to be raised to 47.60 which were higher than the merit points of the petitioner i.e. 47.41. 8. The petitioner has also doubted the genuineness of the experience certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Thathri in favour of respondent No. 5 vide his order dated 24.04.2012. The official respondents have not refuted the genuineness of the aforesaid certificate in their objections. However, the information sought by the petitioner under RTI Act from the concerned Block Development Office and the reply tendered thereto do make it a case for proper verification. 9. In view of the foregoing, I do not find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The merit has been properly evaluated by the respondents in the light of pre-notified selection criteria which, as already stated, is not assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. Respondent No. 5 has been awarded five additional points for experience in terms of the selection criteria which has taken his merit points to 47.60 which is highest in the Panchayat Halqa concerned. That being the position, no fault could be found with the selection of respondent No. 5 as GRS in Panchayat Halqa Halaran of Block Thathri. However, in view of the material available on record, there is serious doubt about the genuineness of the certificate aforesaid. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by providing that the official respondents shall seek verification of the experience certificate purportedly issued by Block Development Officer vide his order dated 24.04.2012 on the basis of which respondent No. 5 has been given five additional points. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by providing that the official respondents shall seek verification of the experience certificate purportedly issued by Block Development Officer vide his order dated 24.04.2012 on the basis of which respondent No. 5 has been given five additional points. If, on enquiry, it is found that the experience certificate relied upon by respondent No. 5 is not genuine and has not been issued by the concerned office, the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 as GRS in Panchayat Halqa Halaran would be deemed to have been cancelled and the petitioner being next in the merit would be entitled to appointment in his place. 10. Disposed of as above.