Vijay Singh vs State And Ors

This is a petition seeking review of judgment and order dated 22.3.2017 passed in SWP No. 1263/2013.

Briefly stated the material facts are as under:

3.The petitioner appears to have applied for the post of Constable in Jammu and Kashmir Auxiliary Police pursuant to advertisement Notification

dated 3.2.2009 issued by the Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, who subsequently issued an addendum to the Advertisement

Notification dated 22.3.2009 prescribing some additional qualification.

The petitioner is stated to have participated in the selection process and submitted a computer diploma, claiming to have been issued by a

recognized institute for which he was awarded two additional marks in accordance with the selection criteria fixed. Subsequently, it was noticed by

the respondents that the institute where the petitioner had obtained the computer diploma was not recognized as it was neither registered nor affiliated

by the J&K State Board of Technical Education. Since the name of the petitioner had figured at serial No. 4 in the RBA category with 24 marks, two

marks were deducted and the merit of the petitioner fell to 22 i.e. below the cut-off point.

The main thrust of the argument during the course of hearing earlier was that the additional qualification prescribed by the addendum dated

29.3.2009 could not have been considered inasmuch as it was not a part of the earlier notification dated 3.2.2009. This argument, however, was

rejected in view of the Apex Court judgment in Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla reported in AIR 1986 SC 1043, subsequently followed

in Madras Institute of Development Studies & anr vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & ors, (2016) 1 SC 454.

The view expressed in the judgement and order of which review is sought was that the petitioner having responded to the addendum issued by the

official respondents and submitted his computer diploma as an additional qualification and therefore, having appeared in the selection process could not

be permitted to turn around and challenge the selection process on the ground that the same ought to have been conducted in terms of the earlier

notification. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

In the present review petition, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner had obtained information under the Right to Information

Act, according to which, it transpired that some of the candidates whose names figured in the select list and were appointed had also not obtained their

diplomas from the registered institutes and therefore, if merit was to be re-calculated, the petitioner would be found more meritorious than those

selected and appointed.

On a pointed question as to when the petitioner applied for the information under right to Information Act, it was stated that the petitioner applied

for the information on 22.12.2016 and the same was provided to him on 02.01.2017.

It needs to be noticed that even when the requisite information was available with the petitioner as is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

no effort at all was made by the petitioner to either amend the petition and to bring on record the additional material which was already available with

him. Even when the petition was filed in 2013, the information had been applied as late as on 22.12.2016.

This court in fact had proceeded to decide the issues which had been highlighted in the petition and raised during the course of arguments. The

fact that has been sought to be urged at this stage was neither a part of the writ petition nor at all argued at the time of hearing when the petition was

finally decided finally on 22.3.2017.

There is thus no error apparent on the face of record. In my opinion, petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.