AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member (J)
The instant petition has been filed by ld. counsel for the applicants with following relief:
i. Quashing the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 against the post of Work Supervisor advertised in District Samba by the respondent no. 3 vide advertisement notice No. 01 of 2013 dated 16-09-2013 under Open Merit category as also the subsequent selection of respondent No. 5 against the same post despite respondent No. 4 continuing thereon.
ii. Quashing the selection criteria adopted by the respondents for making selection against the post of Work Supervisor advertised in District Samba by the respondent no. 3 vide advertisement notice No. 01 of 2013 dated 16-09-2013.
iii. Commanding the respondents to re-assess the merit of all shortlisted candidates as per the selection criteria adopted for making selection against similar posts of Work Supervisor advertised in District Kathua vide advertisement notice No. 04 of 2013 dated 12-11-2013.
iv. Commanding the respondents to re-conduct the interview of the short-listed candidates for the posts of Work Supervisor advertised in District Samba vide advertisement notice No. 01 of 2013 dated 16-09-2013.
In the alternative,
v. Commanding the respondents No. 1 to 3 to select and appoint the applicants also on the same analogy on which selection of respondent No. 5 has been made.
Ld. Counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are aggrieved of the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 against the post of Work Supervisor advertised in District Samba by the respondent no. 3 vide advertisement notice No. 01 of 2013 dated 16-09-2013 under Open Merit category as also the subsequent selection of respondent No. 5 against the same post despite respondent No. 4 continuing thereon. The respondents have made selection in excess of the vacancies advertised which is impermissible under law. As a matter of fact the very selection of respondent No. 04 initially made against the above said one post under Open Merit category was bad in law in as much as the said respondent No. 4 who in the merit list was shown to possess an academic merit of 45 points has been shown in the select list to possess and over all merit of 71.8 points, which could have only been by awarding him by 26.8 points out of 20 points in viva voce. The illegality and arbitrariness in the selection of respondent No. 4 is writ large on the face of record. Further, when the illegality in the selection of respondent No. 4 was agitated by the respondent No. 5 by filing a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, the respondents instead of taking remedial measures by cancelling the selection of respondent No. 4, selected the respondent No. 5 also. Another grave illegality committed by the respondent No. 3 during the course of the process of selection against the above said posts of Work Supervisor in District Samba is that the criteria for selection was changed midway during the process of selection and the same was not even notified by the respondent No. 3. Further, different criteria was adopted for making selection against similar posts in the Districts of Jammu and Samba, detailed reference whereto has already been made in the writ petition. The selection criteria, which has been adopted for making selection against the posts of Work Supervisor in District Kathua, is more rational criteria in as much as the same apart from allocating points for the basic eligibility qualification of Matriculation and technical qualification of ITI Diploma, also earmarks points for the higher qualification of 10+2 which are conspicuously missing from the criteria adopted for making the selection against similar posts in District Samba. The entire process is fraught with arbitrariness. Hence the present petition.
Mr. Rajesh Thapa, learned Additional Advocate General, appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted a corrigendum issued in connection with the advertisement in question. He drew the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the corrigendum pertained to the modification or clarification of the educational qualifications required for the advertised post.
Upon perusal of the corrigendum and the relevant records, it is evident that the change in qualification was made prior to the last date for submission of applications. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any alteration of the eligibility criteria or rules midway or after the closure of the application process.
Since the corrigendum was duly published and the modification in the qualification was come in effect before the closing date of the advertisement, no prejudice has been caused to the applicants. The procedural fairness and transparency have been duly maintained by the respondents in this regard.
6.In view of the above, no cause of action survives for adjudication in the present matter. Accordingly, the T.A. No. 3216 of 2020 stands dismissed as infructuous.
However, there shall be no order so as to costs.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.