AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,,,
In these batch of petitions, the challenge is thrown to the select list dated 05.10.2015 issued by the SSRB for the posts of Junior Physiotherapists.",,,,,
The first ground of challenge to the select list is that some of the selected candidates did not fulfill the requisite eligibility conditions on the last date,,,,,
prescribed as per the notification, i.e., 28.02.2013.Â",,,,,
The other ground of challenge is to the extent that certain certificates like, bonafide certificate, PRC certificate and internship completion",,,,,
certificate, which were otherwise supposed to be produced at the time of submission of the OMR forms were not so produced in any case before the",,,,,
date of the interview.Â,,,,,
With a view to understand the background, in which the present controversy has arisen, it becomes necessary to briefly reflect a few material",,,,,
facts. Â,,,,,
Advertisement notice No. 03 of 2012 dated 28.12.2012 was issued by the SSRB. Certain clauses, which have been subject matter of controversy",,,,,
need to be discussed, as it is in the background of those that the present writ petition will be decided.",,,,,
According to the notification dated 28.12.2012 and Annexure-B, therewith, the requisite qualification prescribed was 10+2 with Diploma in",,,,,
Physiotherapy from any recognized institute. The candidates were required to possess the requisite professional/technical qualification and were also,,,,,
required to fulfill all eligibility conditions as per Annexure-A, B & C to the notification as on 09.02.2013. This was according to clause 3 of the",,,,,
advertisement notification.,,,,,
According to clause 6 of the notification, candidates were required to submit photocopy of duly filled in OMR application alongwith a set of the",,,,,
requisite certificates, experience wherever prescribed.Â",,,,,
Clause 7 envisaged that incomplete forms in any manner were required to be rejected without notice. However, in the present case, this is not the",,,,,
case, where any of the petitioners challenge that the forms were incomplete. The dispute is only with regard to the acquisition of qualification and the",,,,,
submission of documents before the cut-off date.Â,,,,,
Clause 11 and 15 of the notification are relevant and are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:-,,,,,
“11. The last date for the receipt of application forms as prescribed above shall be the cut off date for determining the eligibility to apply for the,,,,,
post. The age limit, however, is determinable with reference to the 1st of January, 2012. Any qualification/ experience acquired thereafter shall not be",,,,,
taken into account for any purpose.,,,,,
The candidate must produce the original qualification/category certificate before the Committee constituted for oral test or as and when the Board,,,,,
may call such documents so that their eligibility for participation in the interview is verified. Any candidate who fails to produce the relevant original,,,,,
documents/ testimonials on the scheduled date shall not be allowed to appear in the written/ oral test.â€,,,,,
It appears that although the last date prescribed for receipt of application forms was fixed up to 09.02.2013, the same stood extended twice, i.e.,",,,,,
by virtue of notice dated 11.02.2013 the time was extended upto 20.02.2013 and finally by virtue of notice dated 16.02.2013 extension of submission of,,,,,
application forms was given up to 28.02.2013. What was stated in the notification dated 16.02.2013, is reproduced hereunder:-",,,,,
GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR SERVICES SELECTION BOARD,",,,,,
SEHKARI BHAWAN, RAIL HEAD, JAMMU",,,,,
**** www.jkssb.nic.in,,,,,
Â,,,,,
SUB: Extension of Sale and date for receipt of OMR/ICR Application forms.,,,,,
000,,,,,
Â,,,,,
 It is notified for information of all the candidates that the last date of sale and receipt of OMR/ICR applications forms against Advertisement,,,,,
Notification No. 03 of 2012 dated 28.12.2012, which was fixed upto 20.02.2013, is hereby extended upto 28.02.2013. However, the other terms and",,,,,
conditions will remain the same as notified vide above quoted Advertisement Notices.Â,,,,,
Â,,,,,
sd:-,,,,,
Secretary,",,,,,
Services Selection Board, Jammu.",,,,,
Â,,,,,
 No. SSB/Sel/SEcy/784-94/2013             Dated: 16.02.2013.,,,,,
Â,,,,,
Â,,,,,
Based upon the applications received and on the performance of the candidates in the oral as well as in interview, the SSRB prepared a select list,",,,,,
which has been questioned in the present petition.Â,,,,,
With a view to determine the first ground of challenge as to whether the Board has selected any of the candidates who did not possess the,,,,,
technical qualification, i.e., diploma in Physiotherapy by the cut-off date, this Court by virtue of order dated 03.04.2018 directed the SSRB to rework",,,,,
on the eligibility of the candidates, keeping in view the cut-off date. This order was issued also considering the statement made by the learned Counsel",,,,,
for the SSRB that some of the selected candidates infact could be ineligible, inasmuch as they had not done their compulsory rotatory internship as",,,,,
Physiotherapists by the last cut-off date.Â,,,,,
Finally, a supplementary affidavit dated 24.04.2018 was filed, wherein five (05) candidates were identified by the SSRB, 03 in the Open Merit and",,,,,
two (02) in the RBA, who according to the Board itself were ineligible, inasmuch as, they had not completed their compulsory rotatory internship as",,,,,
Physiotherapists, without which they could not be presumed to have successfully completed their diplomas/degrees in Physiotherapy before the cut-off",,,,,
date. The names of the aforementioned five (05) candidates are reflected as under:-,,,,,
S.
No.","Int. Sl.
Num",Roll No.Â,Name,"Father’s/
Husband’s
Name",Remarks
Select List (Open Merit),,,,,
1,18,1020800242,Deepali Gupta,"Vijay Kumar
Gupta","Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of bonafide certificate/
validity of
Degree    and  Â
within    date
internship completion
certificate
2,71,1020800380,Poonam Rokri,Vijay Rokri,"Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of valid PRC.
Â,Â,Â,Â,Â,Â
4,9,1020800214,"Anshu
Sharma","Kuldeep Kumar
Sharma","Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of within date internship
completion certificate.
5,123,1030800092,Sumeet Kour,S. Gurdeep Singh,"Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of bonafide certificate/
validity of
Degree and within date
internship completion
certificate.
Â,Â,Â,Â,Â,Â
7,118,1030800081,Sonia Chib,Kartar Singh,"Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of within date internship
completion certificate.
Â,Â,Â,Â,Â,Â
12,55,1020800329,Monika Rekhi,"Ravinder Kumar
Rekhi","Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of bonafide certificate/
validity of
Degree and. within date
internship completion
certificate.
13,11,1020800222,Arti Gupta,"Vijay Kumar
Gupta","Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of bonafide certificate/
validity of Degree.
Â,Â,Â,Â,Â,Â
15,102,1030800052,Shabir Ahmed,"Gh. Haider
Banday","Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of within date internship
completion certificate.
16,47,1020800306,"Mamta
Bhagat",Rattan Singh,"Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of within date internship
completion certificate. Â
Â,Â,Â,Â,Â,Â
19,68,1020800369,"Pallavi
Mahajan",Bishan Gupta,"Recommendation withheld
and is subject to clarification
from competent authority
with regard to residential
district and production of
father’s PRC.
Waiting List (Open Merit),,,,,
1,86,1030800013,"Raviraj Singh
Sudan","Jasbir Singh
Sudan","Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of bonafide certificate/
validity of Degree.
Â,Â,Â,Â,Â,Â
3,65,1020800359,Neha Sharma,Harpaul Sharma,"Recommendation withheld and
is subject to production of
,,,,,father’s PRC.
4,33,1020800281,"Jagan Deep
Singh",Hardev Singh,"Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of bonafide certificate/validity
of Degree and within date of
internship completion
certificate.
5,90,1030800019,"Rimple
Sharma",Ram Lal Sharma,"Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of bonafide certificate/
validity of
Degree and within date
internship completion
certificate.
Select List (RBA Category),,,,,
1,107,1030800059,Shazia Zia,Nissar Hussain,"Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of within date internship
completion certificate.
Â,Â,Â,Â,Â,Â
7,10,1020800221,"Arjun Singh
Katoch","Mangat Ram
Katoch","Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of within date internship
completion certificate.Â
Waiting List (RBA Category),,,,,
2,48,1020800309,"Maneesha
KotwalÂ","Hushyar Singh
KotwalÂ","Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of bonafide
certificate/validity of
Degree.Â
Selection List (SC Category),,,,,
1,70,1020800378,"Pooja
Bhardwaj","Sham Lal
Bhardwaj","Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of bonafide
certificate/validity of
Degree.Â
2,34,1020800282,Jai Kishan,Krishan Kumar,"Recommendation withheld
and is subject to production
of bonafide certificate/
validity of
Degree and within date
internship completion
certificate.
Selection List (ST Category),,,,,
4,45,1020800303,"Liaqat
Mehmood",Nazir Hussain,"Recommendation withheld
and is subject to clarification
with regard to date of
declaration of Degree result
and subject to production of
PRC.
certificates. Learned counsel for the respondentsBoard submits that all the candidates, whose names otherwise figured in the select list except five",,,,,
(05), whose names are to be excluded from the select list had infact produced the requisite certificates of qualification and eligibility before the cut-off",,,,,
date i.e. the date of interview.Â,,,,,
With a view to examine as to why the recommendations were withheld in regard to the names mentioned hereinabove, record was perused. In",,,,,
most of the cases, the recommendations were withheld on account of the non-production of bonafide certificate or non-production of validity",,,,,
certificate with regard to the Degree or the certificate with regard to the completion of internship. All these certificates were never required to be,,,,,
produced in terms of the advertisement notice supra. These certificates were required to be produced with a view to enable the Board to ascertain,,,,,
further as to whether the certificates already produced were bonafide or not.Â,,,,,
Any document required by the Board, which was not otherwise supposed to be produced in terms of the advertisement notice, would not disqualify",,,,,
a candidate from consideration for appointment. Needless to say that the certificates like bonafide certificate etc were required to be produced only,,,,,
for making a recommendation to the Government for appointment of the candidates. Insofar as, the selection of the candidates is concerned, the same",,,,,
cannot be said to be bad, inasmuch as the Board also does not consider the said candidates ineligible for appointment. The objections raised by the",,,,,
learned counsel for the petitioners on that ground is untenable in law and is, accordingly, rejected.Â",,,,,
The third issue highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the eligibility of the candidates with reference to the cutoff,,,,,
date prescribed in the notice dated 28.02.2013 as 09.02.2013. It was stated that although the date of receipt of application forms was extended to,,,,,
28.02.2013, yet the said date was extended only for purposes of receipt of application forms and did not extend the cut-off date for acquisition of the",,,,,
eligibility as regards basic qualification or the technical qualification. Reference in this regard becomes once again necessary to the advertisement,,,,,
notice and the extension notices, which have been issued by the Board. On a perusal of the notice dated 16.02.2013, it becomes clear that the said",,,,,
notice did specify that the date of receipt of application forms was extended to 28.02.2013, other terms and conditions were held to remain the same,",,,,,
as were notified vide advertisement notice No. 28.12.2012.,,,,,
In my opinion, when we see in Clause 11 of the advertisement notice dated 28.12.2012, it can be seen that the cut-off date for determining the",,,,,
eligibility for the post was the last date for receipt of application forms. Notice dated 16.02.2013 has to be read in conjunction with clause 11 of the,,,,,
basic advertisement notice and therefore, once the cut-off date is extended, the eligibility date also gets extended simultaneously. This argument,",,,,,
which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected as being without any legal force.Â,,,,,
Mr. Anchit H. Sharma, Learned counsel for the petitioners in Astha Sharma’s case submits that only the petitioner No. 3 in the said petition is",,,,,
stated to be possessed of a higher qualification. It is stated that no extra credits were given to the said petitioner on account of additional qualification,,,,,
and, therefore, to that extent if the additional qualification was taken into consideration, petitioner No. 3 in Astha Sharma’s case would have",,,,,
certainly found a place in the merit list. This argument is also untenable, inasmuch as, the criteria for selection prescribed by the Board, does not at all",,,,,
cater to the additional qualification as merit was determined only on the basis, the criteria fixed for selection, which was 80 points for written",,,,,
examination and 20 points for viva-voce. No marks at all were prescribed either for the basic qualification or for the technical qualification, much less",,,,,
for the additional qualification. In any case, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the criteria at this belated stage having participated in the",,,,,
process of selection.,,,,,
Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned counsel for the petitioners in Anshu Sharma’s case bearing SWP No. 1186/2016 urged that the cut-off date has",,,,,
to be taken as the date of interview and not as the cut-off date for receipt of application forms. This argument however, is untenable, inasmuch as",,,,,
clause 11 of the advertisement notice specifically prescribed the cut-off date for eligibility as the last date for receipt of application forms. The mere,,,,,
fact that the application forms of the petitioners were accepted and they were permitted to participate in the process of selection would not create any,,,,,
indefeasible right against the petitioners to claim a place in the select panel.,,,,,
For the reasons mentioned above, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Board to re-work the select list within period of four",,,,,
weeks from today. Such of the candidates, who did not fulfill the eligibility conditions by the extended cut-off date, i.e., 28.02.2013 shall be held to be",,,,,
ineligible.Â,,,,,
Interim directions in main matter also in connected matter shall also stand vacated.,,,,,
SWP No. 3446/2014, MP No. 4666/2014",,,,,
Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant writ petition submits that this petition has wrongly been clubbed with the bunch of",,,,,
petitions, therefore, the same may kindly be segregated. Accordingly, SWP No. 3446/2014 is segregated and be listed on",,,,,
10.05.2018.,,,,,