Mohammad Nasir Khan vs State and Others

Bashir A. Kirmani, J.—Claiming to have been placed at S. No. 6 of the merit-cum-selection list prepared by the duly constituted Selection

Committee in terms of annexure C to the petition in 1980, for appointments to the posts of steno typist in J&K Police Department, the petitioner

complains that not only was he dropped from the first spell of appointments made vide order No. 1 of 1980 dated 01.01.1981 from amongst

candidates figuring in the said selection list, and nine persons including respondents 3 to 6 who were down below him in the order of merit

appointed, but also in second spell when other candidates from the said list including him were appointed, he was placed at S.No. 6 in the order of

appointment issued under Order No. 677 of 1981 dated 25.08.1981 while merit-wise he should have been at the top, which resulted in further

loss of seniority to him. Accordingly he seeks quashment of seniority list of 1989 and subsequent promotion orders of private respondents,

alongwith DGPs order No. 3671 of 2002 dated: 27.09.2002 rejecting his representation for rectification of his grievances.

In their reply/objections, respondents maintain that adherence to order of merit/serial in the select list as prepared by the appointed Committee

was not obligatory on the concerned IGP and that private respondents scored precedence over petitioner because of having superior academic

qualification. During course of threshold arguments, learned Counsel have reiterated the contents of their pleadings, and with their consent the

matter is taken up for final disposal.

I have heard learned Counsel and considered the matter. Perusal of the record of selection/appointments made in the matter, as furnished by

government counsel reveals that according to marks awarded for performance in shorthand/ type test interview as contained in award sheet, the

petitioner who alongwith some others appears to have scored the 'A' grade should have ranked 4th in order of merit as having secured 42 marks in

total, 40 in interview, 60 in shorthand and 42 in typing while private respondents 3 to 6 respectively figuring at S. No. 11, 22, 21 and 17 of the

merit list prepared by the selection Committee appear to have obtained 120, 95, 90 & 85 marks respectively. At the same time all of them

alongwith petitioner appear to be simple Matriculates and do not possess any academic superiority order him as pleaded by respondents in their

memo of objections. In addition to that there are certain other visible discrepancies in so far as fixation of the merit position of appointed

candidates inter-se is concerned which have not found any mention, much less an explanation in the memo of objections. In addition from the reply

there is no answer coming forth regarding dropped at the time of initial appointment of nine persons from out of the selection list while he

admittedly figured at S. No. 6 thereof even while, as already said he deserved to be at S. No. 4 of said list, and those down below him found

place in the appointment order. True, that selection as such would only give him a right of consideration; but why was that denied, remains

unanswered. Secondly, as to why in the second list of appointees which was issued seven months after the first one did he figure at S. No. 6 and

those with inferior merit were placed above him. All this suggests that all has not gone well in appointment of selected candidates, due to which an

element of arbitrariness appears to have crept in which has ultimately resulted in adversely effecting petitioner's service rights for which even though

he has had a serious cause to agitate, he has been denied hearing/consideration all through.

Accordingly the DGP's impugned order No. ESTT/P-case/48657-60 dated 27.09.2002 rejecting petitioners representation for proper fixation

of his seniority is quashed, and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to DGP for considering petitioner's case afresh and determining his

seniority in light of forgoing observations alongwith consequential benefits accruing to him within three months from now, whereafter he shall be at

liberty to re-agitate the matter if cause survives or accrues.

The record be returned to Mr. M.A. Rathore, under proper receipt after keeping a photo copy thereof on the court file.