Surinder Kumar vs State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others

In the writ petition, the writ Petitioner contended that he is a graduate with Science and, in addition to that, has undergone one year's course,

and, accordingly, is the only person eligible for being promoted to the post of Sanitation Officer but instead of promoting him, the Respondent-

Municipality has promoted one Purshotam Kumar and another Darshan Kumar, who did not have the said qualification. It was not disputed before

the Writ Court that Purshotam Kumar and Darshan Kumar were senior to the Petitioner in the feeder post. While dismissing the writ petition, the

Court took into account Annexure to the Recruitment Rules where under Column 5 minimum qualification for direct recruitment has been

prescribed and under Column 6 method of recruitment has been prescribed. Under Column 5, i.e., while prescribing minimum qualification for

direct recruitment, graduate with Science and one year's course under the State Medical Faculty or equivalent qualification recognised by the

Government has been prescribed; whereas under Column 6, i.e., method of recruitment, selection from Class III Category (A) has been

prescribed. It has not been prescribed that the post of Sanitation Officer can be filled in by direct recruitment. The method of recruitment in no

uncertain terms makes it clear that post of Sanitation Officer can be supplied only by an inservice employee working in Class III Category (A) and

in order to supply such vacancy, he must go through the selection process. In such circumstances, it may be contended, as has been contended by

the writ Petitioner-Appellant that persons belonging to Class III Category (A) having qualification as prescribed for direct recruitment are only

entitled to be considered for selection. At the same time, while qualification has been prescribed for direct recruitment only and no qualification has

been prescribed for inservice persons to be selected, it can also be contended that qualification prescribed for direct recruitees may not be the

criteria for selecting inservice candidate belonging to Class III Category (A).

We personally feel that this confusion requires to be removed. However in the instant case, selection having been made from Class III Category

(A) without insisting that the candidates should have qualification as prescribed for direct recruitees, it cannot be said that the stand taken by the

Respondents while making such selection was absolutely not permissible and hence not interferable by a Judicial Review Court.

In the circumstances, there is no scope of interference with the conclusion reached in the judgment and order under appeal.

Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that when selection is the method of recruitment prescribed in the Rules, such selection should have

been made on the basis of merit as is the requirement of Sub-rule 2 of Rule 25 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control

and Appeal) Rules, 1956. The said Rule applies to promotions and not to selections. However, selection implies assessment of merit. In order to

make selection on merits, as is also the mandate of Sub-rule 2 of Rule 25 of the said Rules, it is a requirement on the part of the State to prescribe

standards. In the instant case, admittedly, no such standard had been prescribed.

In the circumstances, as stands admitted, seniority alone was taken note of. Though selection on merits after prescription of standard would

have been the best mode, but selection on the basis of seniority in the absence of prescription of standard for selection on merit, we do not think,

can also be interfered with.

The appeal accordingly fails' and the same is dismissed.