AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.S.LATIF, M (J) oral
01/ This writ petition – SWP 1126/2008 (now T.A 450/2020) was initially filed before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K, Srinagar, where it remained pending for about 14 years. Thereafter it came to be transferred to the Jammu Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and ultimately it landed in this bench of CAT, Srinagar.
02/ Perusal of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K, Srinagar, from time to time, unveils a casual approach on the part of the petitioner to pursue the case, which also resulted in dismissal of the same for non prosecution. The petitioner, through the medium of this petition has, inter alia, sought the following reliefs :
“The Hon’ble court may be pleased to command the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner which was not issued for the reason of allegation leveled against him regarding the certificate issued by the competent authority under SRO 126. Further direction is sought to quash the advertisement notification to the extent of appointment of Village Level Worker in district Pulwama and also quash the order of appointment of respondent No.5 issued in his favour after conducting the fresh enquiry and give all benefits to the petitioner, had he not been involved in criminal case and appointed at the first instance.”
02/ What emerges from the pleadings in this petition is that the respondent No.4 – Service Selection Board, Srinagar, published an advertisement notification bearing No. 4 of 1999, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up of different posts including the post of Village Level Worker. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the posts were shown under different heads, which include the Village Level Worker as well. He stated further that the petitioner, having the requisite qualification, applied for being selected/appointed for the post of village level worker under the SC category.
03/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.5, having applied for his selection, also competed in the process and, accordingly, the interview was conducted and, as stated, the petitioner fared well in the interview, however, he was astonished when he did not find his name in the select list and on the other hand, as stated, name of respondent No. 5 figured in the select list of candidates under the SC category and he was even appointed on the post of village level worker.
04/ When this matter came up for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court on 26-04-2013, Mr. A.H.Furahi – Advocate, appeared for respondent No. 5 and thereafter on 08-04-2013, he adopted the reply filed by respondent No.2 for his client. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after having replaced so many counsel in the matter, submitted that the petitioner was more meritorious than the respondent No.5, as such, he ought to have been appointed as village level worker. He was confronted to substantiate this contention and, in this regard, he referred to paragraph (2) of the reply filed by the respondent – SSB, and submitted that the petitioner participated in the selection process as being an OBC/SC candidate and secured 41.78 points, whereas the respondent No.5 herein secured 43.88 points under OBC category. Learned counsel further submitted that due to the arbitrary conduct of the respondents, merit has been converted into demerit, as, by no stretch of imagination, the respondent No.5 could have been considered for selection/appointment, being lesser in merit than the petitioner.
05/ Learned counsel for the respondents, while rebutting the argument of Mr. Hilal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the certificate presented by the petitioner was fake, which even necessitated registration of F.I.R 13/2005 against him in police station Crime Branch, Srinagar, u/s 420, 468 & 471 RPC as the said certificate was held to have not been issued by the office of the Tehsildar, Pulwama. It is submitted that after the trial in the F.I.R by the Crime Branch, the petitioner was acquitted and even the revision filed against the said acquittal was dismissed by the competent court of law.
06/ Perusal of reply filed by the respondent No.2 - Directorate of Rural Development in the matter, reveals that the petitioner has manipulated a fake enquiry report on behalf of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, and submitted the same to the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, under fake dispatch No. 4885/DCP/Pul/04 dated 17-02-2004 and, as a result, the Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama, was to ensure cancellation of the SC certificate of the respondent No.5 as well and, accordingly, SC certificate of respondent No. 5 was also cancelled vide order dated 24-04-2004.
07/ Learned counsel for the respondents was confronted as to why the petitioner was not considered if he was more meritorious than the respondent No.5, leaving the genuineness of his SC certificate to the concerned recruiting agency and when at the same time the SC certificate of respondent No.5 was also canceled.
08/ Since none is present on behalf of respondent No.5 today, despite Mr. A.H.Furahi, having appeared for him as also he having adopted the reply filed by respondent No.3 on behalf of his client, it appears from the conduct of respondent No.5 that right from the year 2013, he has never caused his presence in the mater, which suggests that he is not interested in pursuing his case coupled with the fact that the matter is pending for the past eighteen years.
09/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that law is no more res integra as regards his submission about category certificates and, accordingly, to strengthen his arguments, he has relied upon the judgement of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of J&K, Srinagar, delivered in case titled as Tasmeem Kounsar and others versus State and others , SLJ 2003, VOL. 1, 152, as also judgement titled as Saima Ashraf versus UT Of J&K & others (WPC 408/2022) as well judgement titled as Competent Authority Entrance Examination J&K, Jammu and another versus Mahesh Kumar Raina and another, 2016, vol.2, JKJ - 717 (HC Full Bench).
10/ Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and the citations referred to at the bar. At request, it is taken up for final disposal, given the fact that the matter is pending adjudication from past 18 years and the respondent No.4 – Service Selection Board, Srinagar, is directed to take note of the judgements cited above and, after analyzing the same, pass a speaking order strictly in terms of the entitlement of the petitioner and the case law cited hereinabove. Needful to be done within eight weeks’ from the date a copy of this judgement is served upon the said respondent. It is also ordered that in case the competent authority feels so, they can even afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forth his case effectively.
11/ In the backdrop of what has been discussed above, this T.A. 450/2020 is disposed of along with connected M.As, if any.