Surjit Singh & Ors vs State of J&K & Ors.

In this appeal the appellant has called in question the correctness and legality of the order made by the learned Single Judge in SWP NO. 1253

of 1988 disposed of on December 24,1993 by which the learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel the appellant(Writ petitioner) on

the question of law dismissed the writ petition being without merits. It is this order which is called in question in the present appeal.

We have heard Shri S.S. Lehar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are

as follows:

The petitioner/appellant was a candidate for selection to the post of Master by the Board of J&K Services Selection constituted by the State of

Jammu & Kashmir. Under the provisions of statute relevant for the purpose, it is seen that the Government of Jammu & Kashmir had entrusted the

question of selection of Masters to the Board of Services Selection amongst suitable candidates.

It is stated that respondents 3 to 6 being junior to appellant have been selected as Masters, but the petitioner/appellant having merit, ability and

seniority has been ignored from being promoted to the post of Master by the concerned authority. Aggrieved by this selection of the Board of

Services Selection, the petitioner/appellant had filed SWP No. 1253 of 1988 challenging the correctness and legality of the said selection for the

reason set out in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge after considering the grounds taken in the writ petition and hearing the arguments

advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, observed that the petitioner had mainly stressed upon the following two star grounds in support

of his writ petition

i) that the petitioner, being senior to respondents 3 to 6 and having better merit and suitability, had preferential right or claim over them for being

promoted to the post of Master and

ii) that the Selection, made purely based upon the interview test by the Services Selection Board without following the method based upon the

written test, was unconstitutional.

Considering the first point, referred to above, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner did not possess any superior merit or suitability

as against the respondents 3 to 6. As regards the second point, referred to above the learned Single Judge observed that the method adopted by

the Services Selection Board was based upon the relevant statute and that it was not open to the petitioner to challenge that method as contrary to

the Constitution. Thus, while rejecting both the points, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on December 24,1993. Hence, this

appeal.

Shri S.S. Lehar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, reiterated the grounds (c) to (e) made in the writ petition in the

present appeal and submitted that it was not proper on the part of the Services Selection Board to adopt the only method of selection to the post

of Master based upon the interview test without holding the written test to assess the merits and demerits of the candidates. Similarly, he contended

that the writ petitioner being senior to respondents 3 to 6, the Selection Board ought to have considered his (petitioner's) case according to his

seniority while making selection to the post of Master.

We do not see any force in the submission made by Mr. Lehar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with such a question in Ajay HasiA etc. Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehraverdi and others, reported in AIR 1981

SC 487, wherein their Lordships have held that assessment of merit and suitability for appointment to the post only by way of interview without

written test is not arbitrary. Indeed, this decision of Ajay Hasia came to be reconsidered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Leila Dhar Vs State of

Rajasthan and others, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1777. The Supreme Court once again endorsed the ruling made in Ajay Hasia's case and their

Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that it is for the Rule making authority to prescribe the method of selection and to see whether such

selection is to be based upon the assessment of merit and suitability only by holding an interview test or written test followed the vivavoce test or

both. 6. In the present case, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Services Selection Board had committed an error in

not following the method prescribed under the statute for the purpose of appointing Masters, but it is not his contention that the law relevant for the

prupose of selection to the post of Master found in the statute applicable in the State of J&K, did provide both tests, written examination as well as

holding of vivavoce test. On the other hand, his submission is that the selection made by the Services Selection Board, based upon purely

assessment of the merits and suitability for appointment of the candidates based upon the interview test or vivavoce test, is incorrect and

unconstitutional.

In the light of the ruling of the Supreme court in the above referred two decisions, it is clear that the statute applicable in the State of J&K at the

relevant point of time did provide interview test of Masters based purely upon the vivavoce test and there is no error committed by the Services

Selection Board in doing so.

Viewed thus, we do not see any force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. Jammu 14.11.1995