AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,
Sanjay Dhar, J",,
1) Appellant has called in question judgment dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Writ Court in a writ petition filed by respondent No.1 bearing SWP,,
No.567/2012, wherein the said respondent had challenged the selection of appellant against the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail. Vide the",,
impugned judgment of the Writ Court, the selection of appellant has been quashed and the respondent No.1 has been held to be entitled to appointment",,
as Assistant Superintendent Jail.,,
2) The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that the respondent No.3 herein (Services Selection Board) vide advertisement notice No.02 of,,
2003 dated 10.12.2003, invited applications for one post of Assistant Superintendent Jail under Open Merit category and prior to that, the said",,
respondent had issued advertisement notice No.01 of 2001 dated 11.01.2001, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail. It is an",,
admitted fact that the appellant being eligible for the post, applied pursuant to the notification No.02 of 2003 dated 10.12.2003 whereas respondent",,
No.1(hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) also being eligible for the said post responded to both the foresaid notifications.,,
3) Respondent No.3 initiated the process of selection for filling up the vacancies of Assistant Superintendent Jail notified vide both the aforesaid,,
notifications together and simultaneously. The eligible candidates who had applied pursuant to the aforesaid notifications were called for undergoing,,
height and measurement test that was conducted on 8th and 9th of July, 2011 and some of the candidates, who could not participate in the test on the",,
aforesaid dates, were allowed to participate in the interview subject to the clearance of the height and measurement test.",,
4) In terms of notification dated 24.09.2011, the provisionally eligible candidates in respect of both the advertisement notifications were called for",,
interview which was scheduled to be held on 3rd October, 2011 at J&K Services Selection Board, Central office Zum Zum Building, Rambagh, at",,
10.00 AM onwards. The writ petitioner was called for interview in respect of both the notifications whereas the appellant, who had responded to",,
notification No.02 of 2003 only, was called for interview in respect of said notification only.",,
5) After conducting interview of eligible candidates, the respondent Services Selection Board recommended for appointment the candidature of one",,
Shahbaz Hussain S/o Mohammad Yousuf Bhat in open merit category and Feroz Ahmad S/o Abdul Gaffar Lone in RBA category in respect of,,
advertisement notice No.01 of 2001 dated 11.10.2001 whereas Mir Behjat-un-Nazir, the appellant herein, was recommended for appointment in",,
respect of advertisement notice No.02 of 2003 dated 10.12.2003. The writ petitioner did not find entry in the select list of either of the two,,
advertisement notifications.,,
6) The aforesaid action of the Services Selection Board prompted the writ petitioner to file the writ petition wherein he contended that a single and,,
common interview was conducted for the posts of Assistant Superintendent Jail notified vide aforesaid two notifications. According to him, since he",,
had attended the interview, as such, he should have been awarded marks in the viva voce in respect of selection pertaining to both the notifications but",,
instead of doing so, the respondent Services Selection Board has shown him ‘absent’ in the interview/viva voce test in reference to",,
advertisement notice no.02 of 2003. It was further contended that if the writ petitioner would have been awarded the same number of points in the,,
viva voce relating to selection for notification of 2003, as was awarded to him in the viva voce conducted for notification No.01 of 2001, he would",,
have made the grade by securing merit far superior to that of the appellant herein. Explaining it further, the writ petitioner has contended that he was",,
awarded 13 points in viva voce with reference to advertisement notice no.01 of 2001 and if the same number of points would have been awarded and,,
added to the points secured by him with reference to advertisement notice no.02 of 2003, he would have secured 49.32 points which is higher than",,
40.40 points secured by the appellant, the selected candidate. It was also contended by the writ petitioner that only a single and common viva voce test",,
was conducted by the Services Selection Board and, as such, there was no reason for the Board or the Selection Committee to show him",,
‘absent’ with reference to viva voce pertaining to advertisement notice no.02 of 2003.,,
7) The writ petition was resisted by the appellant by filing objections thereto, wherein it was contended by the appellant that the selection process in",,
respect of two advertisement notifications was conducted separately and the candidates were assigned separate serial numbers. It was further,,
contended that separate interviews in respect of two notifications were conducted by the Services Selection Board and that the writ petitioner did not,,
appear in the interview conducted with reference to notification No.02 of 2003 and, accordingly, he was shown as ‘absent’ and awarded",,
‘zero’ points for the viva voce.,,
8) The respondent Services Selection Board also filed its objections to the writ petition, in which it was contended that the candidates in respect of two",,
separate notifications were required to fill up the check list forms and mark the attendance sheets for the respective notifications as against which the,,
candidates were appearing for the interview. According to the Services Selection Board, the writ petitioner had filled up check list form for only",,
notification No.01 of 2001 and he did not fill up the check list form for notification No.02 of 2003 and he remained absent, as a result of which he was",,
awarded zero points for the viva voce in respect of the said notification.,,
9) The Writ Court, vide judgment dated 22.10.2019, while allowing the writ petition accepted the contention of the writ petitioner that there was a",,
single interview for the posts of Assistant Superintendent Jail notified vide the aforesaid two notifications. The learned Writ Court further noted that,,
there was tampering in check list form filled up by the writ petitioner, inasmuch as the particulars of the notification and its date were scored off and in",,
place of notification No.02 of 2003, notification No.01 of 2001 was overwritten in the check list form. On this basis, the Writ Court came to the",,
conclusion that the respondent Board has indulged in tampering of the records in order to shower benefit upon the appellant herein and to deprive the,,
writ petitioner of selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail. It is this judgment of the Writ Court which is under challenge,,
before us in this intra-court appeal.,,
10) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the appeal including the record of the Writ Court and the record of the,,
Services Selection Board pertaining to both the advertisement notifications.,,
11) The decision of the issue involved in this appeal hinges on the answer to the question whether there was a common interview for both the,,
notifications i.e., notification No.01 of 2001 and notification No.02 of 2003. If the answer to this question is in affirmative, then the finding of the",,
learned Writ Court that the writ petitioner could not have been shown absent in the interview with reference to notification No.02 of 2003 is justified,,
but in case it is found that two separate interviews were conducted for the two advertisement notifications, the situation may be different.",,
12) From the examination of the record of the two notifications, it comes to the fore that the selection process in respect of both these advertisement",,
notifications has proceeded simultaneously and together. The physical measurement and physical endurance test of eligible candidates in respect of,,
both the advertisement notices was conducted on the same day. The members of the Selection Committee who conducted interview of the candidates,,
are also the same. Pursuant to notification dated 24.09.2011, the shortlisted candidates in respect of both the notifications were called for interview",,
and they were asked to attend the viva voce test on the same date, at the same venue and at the same time.",,
Interview panel,Award of marks in notification No.1 of 2001,"Award of marks in
notification No.2 of
2003
Administrative Officer,Interviewed against notification No.2 of 2003,Fifteen (15)
Member SSB,Interviewed against notification No.2 of 2003,Twelve (12)
Javid Kamil,Five (5),"Candidate has been
interviewed against S.
No.7 of Notice No.1.
G. R. Gilkar Deputy
Director Information","Candidate has been interviewed against S. No.5 of
Notification No.2 of 2003",Four (4)