Raju Kumar vs State Of J&K & Ors

Tashi Rabstan, J

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.12.2010 delivered by the learned Single Judge in SWP No.1471/2005 and SWP No.1188/2008, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioner.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and also perused the appeal file.

The claim of writ petitioner before the Writ Court was that since no candidate was selected in the OBC (Other Backward Classes) Category against the post of Forest Protection Guard pursuant to notification issued in the year 1996 and the said vacancy remained unfilled, as such the writ respondents were under an obligation to carry forward the said post under the OBC Category in the selection process which had taken place pursuant to notification issued on 14.09.2004.

Learned counsel for writ respondents placed a copy of original select list before the Writ Court showing that since one Tara Chand had already been selected against the post of Forest Protection Guard under the OBC Category pursuant to notification issued in the year 1996, as such there was no question of carrying forward the said vacancy in the selection process of 2004, as the said vacancy had already been filled up under the OBC Category in the year 1996 itself. Relying on the said select list, the Writ Court dismissed both the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioner. Otherwise too, as per the admitted position, the writ petitioner was lacking in eligibility criteria, as he was not having the requisite certificate of reserved category of OBC during the selection process pursuant to notification issued in the year 1996.

We are also of the view that since the post-in-question under the OBC Category had already been filled up in the selection process of 1996 itself; as such no question arises for carrying forward the said post in the selection process of 2004. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel is also of no help to the writ petitioner.

Viewed thus, we are not inclined to take a view other than the one taken by the learned Single Judge and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected IA.