MOHD RAFIQ MALIK AND OTHERS vs STATE AND OTHERS

These Letters Patent Appeal are directed against order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 852/2018, whereby

learned writ Court has stayed the selection and appointment of private respondents, i.e., subject to objections and till next date before the Bench. Â

Briefly stated the facts are that all the appellants and private respondents are Engineering Graduates in the discipline of Electrical Engineering and

Electronics and Communication Engineering. The Power Development Department (PDD) vide communication dated 09.07.2013 had referred 44

posts of Assistant Engineers (Electric) to the Public Service Commission. which in turn vide Advertisement Notification No.15-PSC (DR-P) of 2013

dated 12.08.2013 notified the said posts with the following breakup:-

OMÂ :Â 25

RBAÂ : 09

SC :Â 03

     Â

Â

ST : 04

     Â

Â

ALCÂ : 02

SLCÂ : 01

Total :       Â

44

The appellants as well as writ petitioners-respondents have responded against the said Notification. It is contended that against 44 posts referred to

hereinabove, 2814 applications were received by the PSC. On the basis of a Computer Based Screening Test conducted on 30.11.2017, at two

notified Centers viz. Jammu and Srinagar, 136 applicants- candidates were declared to have qualified in the ratio of 1:3 after application of the rule and

called for oral test/Interview. Accordingly, 136 candidates appeared in the aforesaid Screening Test. In terms of the order passed by this Court, one

more candidate was allowed to participate in the selection process in addition to 136 candidates. On the basis of performance in the interview

conducted as per the criteria fixed under Rule 51 of the J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 as amended from

time to time and other related parameters, the select list was prepared and published vide Notification. No. 15-PSC (DR-S) of 2018 dated 03.04.2018.

Subsequently appointment orders have been issued in favour of the appellants.Â

Writ petitioners-respondents herein filed writ petition bearing SWP No.852/2018 challenging the selection and appointment conducted by the Public

Service Commission (PSC) inter alia on the ground that the candidates were selected on the basis of a non-uniform criteria, inasmuch as, various

candidates were interviewed by different Selection Committees constituting of different expert members. It was urged before the writ Court that it

was not possible for the different Committees to adopt the same adjudging standards and to determine inter see merit amongst various candidates

appearing before them.

The writ Court, after analyzing the facts in depth  and hearing learned counsel for the parties has stayed the selection and appointment of

private respondents. Being aggrieved present Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the appellants.

It may be noticed that order passed by the learned Single judge was an interim measure and selection and appointment of private respondents was

stayed subject to objections and till next date of hearing only. Normally, the Courts do not interfere in such matters where orders are passed subject

to objections. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellants have already been appointed and writ petitioners-

respondents herein are only seven in numbers, stalling whole selection process against the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) would not be

appropriate at this stage. Thus, without entering into the merit of the case, we are inclined to modify the interim order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the

writ Court in SWP No852/2018 to the extent that appointment of last seven appointees/candidates selected under open merit category shall remain

stayed. However, appointment of rest of the appointees/candidates shall remain subject to outcome of the writ petition.Â

We request the writ Court to take up the matter for final consideration at the earliest. Respondents before the writ Court to file counter-affidavit

within two weeks with advance copy to other side. Rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter.

Accordingly, instant appeals are disposed of in the aforementioned terms.