Gagan Pratap Singh and Others vs State and Others

J.P. Singh, J.—Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking quashing of Notification No. 7 PSC of 2003 of June 27, 2003 in so far as it

invites eligible candidates for selection against the posts of Lecturer Grade-I Travel and Tourism (Non-Engineering) in the Higher and Technical

Education Department.

The grievance of the petitioners, in a nut-shell, is that the posts required to be filled up by promotion by the respondents, had been diverted to

be filled up by direct recruitment, which course, according to them was impermissible, in that, it would prejudice the petitioners who are stated to

have been engaged, on contractual basis, for serving in the Government Polytechnic College. It is additionally pleaded by the petitioners that the

Jammu and Kashmir Technical (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2002 were likely to be enforced and in such an event, they would become

entitled to compete for the posts against the direct recruitment quota; the qualifications prescribed in the notification impugned in the writ petition

for the diverted direct recruitment posts, being different from those prescribed under the rules, would render the impugned notification

unsustainable.

Petitioner's Learned Counsel Mr. Sethi submits that the qualifications for the posts required to be filled up by the State Government, are in law,

required to be prescribed by the State Government, the employer, and the qualification prescribed in the impugned notification, by the Public

Service Commission, the Selection Authority, was an unwarranted act of the Commission which renders the impugned notification invalid. He

therefore seeks quashing of the notification.

Justifying the notification impugned in the writ petition and inter alia questioning the maintainability of petitioners' writ petition, it is stated by the

respondents that petitioner's grievance that the advertised direct recruitment posts were required to be filled up by promotion, was misconceived in

that, posts in the promotion quota were available only to those permanent members of the service who belonged to Class IV category-B of the

service with five years experience in the category, and the petitioners who were neither the members of the service nor belonged to Class IV

category-B of the service had thus no claim over the promotion quota posts.

Petitioners are stated to have applied for the advertised posts. They were, however, found ineligible to compete for the posts as they did not

possess the requisite prescribed qualification. Having maintained silence for quite some time, the petitioners, it is stated, are not entitled to invoke

the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court. ;

It is stated by the respondents that in order, to upgrade the Polytechnic Colleges in the State, the Government of India had sanctioned project

under World Bank Assistance Tech-Edu.III whereunder new courses had to be introduced to the four Polytechnics of the State. Teaching and

supporting staff had thus been sanctioned vide Government Order No. 107-Edu (tech) of 2001 dated 24.09.2001 for four project Polytechnics.

Most of these courses are stated to be new and there was no feeding cadre wherefrom the promotions could be made. These posts were

accordingly decided by the Government to be filled up by direct recruitment.

I have considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties and find the petitioners writ petition to be utterly misconceived, in that,

having not yet become the permanent employees of the State Government and the members of the Polytechnic service, the petitioners have no

enforceable individual right to maintain the writ petition because they do not belong to Class IV Category-B of the service. Even otherwise, the

petitioners have no right to project the cause of the promotees by invoking extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court which may be invoked only

in those cases where there is violation of any fundamental, legal or statutory right.

That apart, having come to the court with unclean hands without disclosing in the writ petition as to the rejection of their candidature by the

Public Service Commission, the petitioners may not be entitled to equitable writ jurisdiction of this Court. Even otherwise, prescribing of higher

qualification than the one appearing in the rules, and that too for the posts advertised vide impugned notification for the posts which had to survive

during the life of the project under World Bank Assistance Tech-Edu. Ill Scheme, cannot be faulted by the petitioners.

For all what has been said above, I do not find any merit in petitioners' writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.

5000/-. Interim order issued by the Court on April 15, 2005 is, accordingly, vacated.