Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 104 (JK)

Mehmood Ahmed v. State of J&K

2019-02-28

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. One post of Works Manager in the Transport Department came to be advertised by the J&K Public Service Commission vide advertisement notification dated 31.12.2013 in the Open Merit Category. According to the advertisement notification, selection of candidates shortlisted for interview was to be made in accordance with Rule 51 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business & Procedure) Rules, 1980. Reference to Rule 51 and in particular clause v is material, which is being reproduced:- "51(v) For determination of the suitability of candidates for appointment, the candidates from open category shall be required to score a minimum of 50% and those belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Classes and Physically Challenged Persons shall have to obtain a minimum of 40% out of the total weightage points earmarked for assessment in the aforesaid rule." 2. It appears that in the process of selection, none of the candidates, who had participated secured the minimum 50% merit, as was required in terms of the clause aforementioned. The highest score obtained by the candidates was 48.88. The petitioner secured 47.29 points and figured at Sr. No. 3 in the merit list. 3. The challenge in the present petition rests on the plea that the aforementioned Rule 51, did not at all require the petitioner to secure 50% points, as he belongs to the ST category, he was required only to secure 40% out of the total weightage points earmarked for assessment being an ST category candidate. It is in those circumstances that the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the Notification No. 08-PSC(DR-S) of 2016, dated 15.03.2016, whereby none of the candidates have been held to be eligible in terms of Rule 51(v). A mandamus is also sought commanding the respondents to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Natnoo, learned AAG appearing for the Public Service Commission urged that the candidates are to be adjudged by relaxed standards only in their respective categories. It is stated that it is only in that manner that the rule has been applied for decades. 5. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Natnoo, learned AAG appearing for the Public Service Commission urged that the candidates are to be adjudged by relaxed standards only in their respective categories. It is stated that it is only in that manner that the rule has been applied for decades. 5. It was further stated that since the post advertised was under the Open Merit Category, the petitioner would have to forget his status as a candidate belonging to the ST category and would have to be judged purely on the standards fixed for judging candidates in the Open Merit Category. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The fact that the post was advertised in the Open Merit Category is not denied. Equally undeniable is the fact that the petitioner belongs to the ST Category. It is also admitted that there is no post advertised in the ST Category. 8. It needs to be pointed out that Rule 51(v) is general in its application and must be construed to prescribe the relaxed standards of 40% in case of ST candidates only in a situation where they apply for a post reserved for the category. In other words, had there been a post advertised in the ST category, the petitioner, even if he had secured 40% marks would have been declared to be eligible on such relaxed standards. It cannot at all be comprehended that an Open Merit Category Candidate, who secured 48.88% marks, but less than the 50% prescribed in terms of Rule 51(v) is ignored and the category candidate like the petitioner who secured 47.29% marks is held to be eligible and appointed, based upon the relaxed standards. Such an interpretation would do violence to Rule 51(v), besides being highly prejudicial to the interest of a candidate in the Open Merit Category, who despite securing more marks in the selection process would be ignored. 9. In my opinion, therefore, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable in law. This petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected IA.