news details |
|
|
| HC directs state to appoint petitioners in Accounts Service notionally | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 4: High court judge Janak Raj Kotwal today directed state to appoint petitioners in J&K Accounts Service notionally from the date when other candidates selected in the same selection process were appointed and give them seniority from that date.
The court observed that the commission seemed to have shown disregard to the interest of candidates who had succeeded in finding a place in the select list but got defeated in the process of allocation of service to them.
The commission thus lacked endeavour to adjust meritorious candidates in a service other than police service for which they were not eligible and contradicted its own wisdom that if these candidates were not included in the select list, they would have to be replaced by candidates who had secured less marks. This had resulted into great injustice to the petitioners and similar other candidates and infracted their fundamental right to equality of opportunity relating to appointment in public employment under Article 15 of the constitution, the court said.
Justice Kotwal observed that petitions "have strong merit and are allowed without, however, disturbing allocation of service made to any other candidates for the reason that selection is more than five years old and the appointed candidates by now would have completed their trainings and acquired right to benefits in the services allocated to them and directed state to appoint the petitioners in J&K Accounts Service notionally from the date when other candidates selected in the same selection process were appointed and give them seniority from that date".
Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to take all administrative measures like creation of supernumerary posts for such periods as may be required and to do good by completing the entire exercise without any delay, preferably within eight weeks hereafter.
"What can thus be stated precisely is that the commission, after completing selection process, had prepared and recommended to government a select list of 189 candidates equivalent to the number of vacancies which were referred for selection. All the four petitioners figured in this list at serial No 82, 144, 150 and 189 in order of their merit. The commission also sent to the government category-wise select lists showing options of preference and service allocated to each candidate. All the petitioners were allocated police service. They, however, were not fulfilling the physical criteria for police service as provided under Rule 5 of the Rules of 2008 that govern the conduct of Combined Competitive Examination by the commission as they were suffering short fall in height and chest. In total there were eleven such candidates. Three of them -- Suresh Kumar Sharma, Muddasar Buddar Mir and Showkat Ahmed Bhat -- were selected in open merit. Five others, including Mohammad Amin Bhat, Irshad Ahmed Sheikh, Hoshiar Chand, Sham Singh Rai and Shazia Akhter were selected under RBA category while Sunaina Bharti and Vijay Kumar were selected under SC category and Pankaj Sasan under ALC category. The commission neither allocated these candidates any service other than police service nor excluded them from the select list on account of their not meeting the physical criteria for police service. The commission, as per its November 21, 2011 communication (supra) shows that it did not exclude them from the select list taking the view that in that case they would have to be replaced by other candidates who had secured less marks than these candidates in the examination. The commission, however, does not seem to have made any endeavour to look into the possibility of allocating them any other service. The commission also nourished a hope that four of these candidates may fulfill the physical criteria for police service in view of SRO 154 of May 19, 2011, whereby the physical criteria provided for Police Service under the Rules of 2008 was rationalized during currency of the selection process," the court said.
The court said noting in the record produced on behalf of the government would show that four out of the 11 candidates, namely Suresh Kumar Sharma, Showkat Ahmed Bhat, Mohammad Amin Bhat and Shazia Akhter (RBA) were accommodated and appointed in police service by giving them benefit in terms of SRO 154.
Justice Kotwal said that for determining the aforementioned questions it is important to understand as to what according to the Commission compelled it to allocate Police Service alone even to those candidate who to its knowledge did not fulfil prescribed physical criteria for this service. Petitioners Hoshiar Chand and Sham Singh Rai (SWP No. 1608/2012) had applied under RBA category.
Thirty seven out of 189 vacancies were reserved under RBA category, six out of which were in Administrative Service, seven in Accounts Service and twenty four in Police Service. Equal number of candidates was selected by the commission under this category. Against this, the select list under RBA category would, however, show that one candidate (physically handicapped) alone was allocated Administrative Service, three were allocated Accounts Service and 33 Police Service. The Commission has explained this discrepancy by stating in its reply that out of six vacancies in the Administrative Service, five were allocated to those RBA candidates who got selected in open merit by application of Rule 7 (8) of J&K Reservation Rules notified vide SRO 294 of October 21, 2005 and the 6th vacancy was allocated to candidate selected under RBA category. Likewise, out of the seven vacancies in Accounts Service, four were allocated in terms of SRO 294 to those RBA candidates who got selected in open merit and remaining three were allocated to the three candidates selected under RBA category, who were having higher merit than the petitioners. Petitioner Vijay Kumar had applied under SC category. Sixteen vacancies were reserved under SC category, three of which were in Administrative Service, three in Accounts Service and 10 in police service. Equal number of candidates was selected under this category. Out of these 16 candidates, three were to be allocated Administrative Service, other three were to be allocated Accounts Service and 10 police service. As against this, the select list under SC category would show that one candidate alone was allocated Administrative Service, three were allocated Accounts Service and twelve Police Service. The discrepancy has been explained by the government in its reply by stating that out of three vacancies in Administrative Service reserved for SC category, two were allocated in terms of Rule 7(8) of SRO 294 to SC candidates, who were selected in open merit. The 3rd vacancy was allocated to a candidate selected under SC category having higher merit.
"In aforementioned scenario, having regard to the factual as well as legal aspects, this petition is allowed by directing respondents to issue a writ of mandamus to accord consideration to the case of the petitioner for his selection and appointment against a post having remained unfilled or rendered vacant under ALC category due to non-joining of any candidate. This exercise be completed without any delay, preferably, within six weeks after petitioner provides a copy of this judgment in the office of respondent," the court said |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
