Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 159 (JK)

Veena Rani v. State of J&K

2019-03-27

SINDHU SHARMA

body2019
Judgment 1. Petitioner applied for the post of Supervisor in the Social Welfare Department pursuant to advertisement Notice No. 06/2008 dated 28.05.2008. In terms of the advertisement notice dated 28.05.2008, essential qualification for the post of Supervisor was required, which is as under:— “Graduation … Preference shall be given to female candidates having one of the subjects – Home Science, Child Development, Sociology and the last date fixed for submission of application forms was 18th of June, 2008.” 2. Petitioner being eligible and qualified in B. Sc. (Home Science) as well as Masters Degree in Home Science applied for the said post in OM category. The Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as SSB) vide its notification No. SSB/DW/J/2008 dated 03.11.2008 notified the criteria as well as list of candidates shortlisted for interview for the posts advertised in terms of notification No. 06/2008 dated 28.05.2008, i.e., MMPHW, Sanitary Inspectors as well as Supervisor, District Cadre Kathua. Petitioner is aggrieved of the selection of respondent Nos. 3 to 10, on the ground that the petitioner being more meritorious should have appointed to the said post. She was neither shortlisted nor called for interview and had no opportunity to submit her claim was allotted to her. Contention of the petitioner is that vide notification dated 03.11.2008, candidates were shortlisted for various posts advertised vide notification No. 06/2008 dated 28.05.2008, however, in the Annexure-A, i.e., list of shortlisted candidates for the post of Supervisor, it is mentioned that those who had applied vide advertisement notification No. 06/2008. Similarly, in the corrigendum also, so far as the list it mentioned at advertisement notice No. 0/2008 for the post of Supervisor. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that she being more qualified and meritorious should have been appointed to the said post. But the respondents neither shortlisted nor called her for interview and she had no opportunity to submit her claim for the post for which she applied. Contention of the petitioner is that vide notification dated 03.11.2008, candidates were shortlisted for various posts advertised vide notification No. 06/2008 dated 28.05.2008 but in the Annexure-A, i.e., list of shortlisted candidates among other posts, for the post of Supervisor in District Cadre Kathua, advertised notice has been mentioned as 0/2008. Similarly, in the corrigendum also, so far as the list it mentioned at advertisement notice No. 0/2008 for the said post. Similarly, in the corrigendum also, so far as the list it mentioned at advertisement notice No. 0/2008 for the said post. Therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the fact that there are the same posts for which she had applied. Since, her name did not figure in shortlisting, she could neither represent to the respondents for non-inclusion of her name, nor could challenge the same. 4. It only when the select list was published, that, she enquired about, the selection process, and the fact, that there was a typographic mistake in the notification number, thus she could not present her claim. It is also stated by the petitioner that in terms of the criteria she would have been selected for shortlisting and also consequently selected, for the post of Supervisor. 5. Respondents have filed their objections, wherein it is stated that six (06) posts in the Open Merit had been advertised for post of Supervisor in the Social Welfare Department, vide notification No. 06/2008. It is also submitted that the criteria and schedule for conducting the interview was duly notified and in the said notification as is evidence from the Annexure-F, shortlisting notification dated 03.11.2008 and corrigendum notification dated 04.11.2008, it is clearly stated on the opening lines that interview of all eligible candidates, who have applied for the post of MMPHW, Sanitary Inspector and Supervisor, District Cadre, Kathua advertised vide notification No. 06/2008 dated 28.05.2008 shall be conducted in terms of the said notification. The annexure to this order contains the list for various posts. It is further stated that inadvertently due to typographic error, insofar as shortlisting of candidates for the post of Supervisor is concerned, instead of advertisement notice No. 6/2008, notice No. 0/2008 was given. Since notification showing all the posts were common and the number already mentioned on the top of the notification, this typographic error could not be a ground of challenge. 6. Since notification showing all the posts were common and the number already mentioned on the top of the notification, this typographic error could not be a ground of challenge. 6. The respondents have further submitted that the candidates who had applied for the said post and was shortlisted had approached in terms of Clause 7 of the notification dated 03.11.2008, which had subsequently stated that “In case of the candidate whose names does not figure in the list although he has applied for the said post are advised to submit their claims on application along with all relevant testimonials self attested and duly attested by Gazetted Officer to the Divisional Office, Service Selection Board, 1 D/C Gandhi Nagar, Jammu by or before 06.11.2008 for consideration and thereafter no claim shall be entertained.” 7. The respondents have also placed reliance on the advertisement notice No. 06/2008 in terms of clause VII(c), which clearly stated that “Call letters shall not be issued individually. Board shall give wide publicity through print and electronic media about the venues, dates of the interview for the eligible short-listed candidates. As such, applicants in their own interest shall contact the Divisional offices of the Board/ Joint Director Employment and Dy. Director Employment of the Districts within 15 days from the closing date of receipt of applications to know the dates for interview of the shortlisted candidates. No claim of being unaware of interview shall be entertained and no further intimation of interview dates shall be given. The list of short listed candidates & interview dates will also be available in the offices of Tehsildar/ Block Development Officer / Naib Tehsildars of concerned districts for information of the candidates to be interviewed.” 8. Thus, the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was not aggrieved of the shortlisting of the candidates for the post, neither did she approach nor included her name in the said list. It is only after the select list was published that the petitioner woke up and approached the court by taking a plea that she was not aware about the shortlisting because of the typographic error occurring in the number of notification in the column and annexure. 9. It is only after the select list was published that the petitioner woke up and approached the court by taking a plea that she was not aware about the shortlisting because of the typographic error occurring in the number of notification in the column and annexure. 9. Perusal of the notice clearly indicates that in the notification dated 03.11.2008, on the opening lines, it is clearly mentioned interview of all the eligible candidates shown in Annexure “A” to the notification who have applied for the post of MMPHW, Sanitary Inspector and Supervisor, District Cadre, Kathua as per the dates shown against each at Irrigation Rest House, Kathua at 09.30. a.m. The corrigendum dated 04.11.2008 also mentioned the correct date of the notification on the top of the notification, which was published in two newspapers which also would not be of any help to the petitioner. 10. In view of the above, the petitioner did not approach the respondents after the interview or shortlisting was done vide notifications dated 03.11.2008 & 04.11.2008. It is only after the select list was published on 27.06.2010 that the petitioner woke up from the deep slumber and decided to challenge the selection of the respondents by approaching this court. However, the plea taken by the petitioner that she could not lay a challenge to the shortlisting criteria because of the error crept in, after perusal of the notices is not available to the petitioner, therefore, the column in the Annexure making a typographic error would not advance the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner thus having not questioned the selection process and shortlisting criteria now cannot turn around and challenge the same, thus, this petition appears to be without any merit and same is, accordingly, dismissed.