Abida Bano @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others

Vide advertisement notification No.01 of 2017 dated 18.01.2017, applications were invited by respondent No.3 for engagement of Groundsman (class-IV) which included three posts of Groundsman (Class-IV) in district Ramban. The petitioner being eligible applied for the aforesaid post. The petitioner was short-listed for viva voce and was interviewed on the scheduled date. On the basis of the inter se merit, respondent No.2 prepared a select list in which the petitioner was indicated at serial No.1 in the waitlist of the open merit category. The merit obtained by the petitioner is 72.58 whereas the candidate selected under RBA category shown to have secured 70.92 and 69.67 marks respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that having obtained highest merit in the RBA category i.e. 72.58 which is higher than the merit of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, he ought to have been placed at serial No.1 in the select list of RBA category but has been placed in the wait list of open merit category. The status of the petitioner being resident of backward area could not have worked to his prejudice, as has happened in the instant case.

Notice.

Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He submits that the grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition can be looked into by the respondents and remedial measure, as may be warranted under law, can be taken by the competent authority.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that in the manner in which the select list has been prepared is not in consonance with the law. The petitioner being a RBA candidate and having secured the merit of 72.58 marks should have been selected under the RBA category and should not have been placed in the wait list under open merit category, as has been done by the respondents in the impugned select list.

The status of the petitioner being a person belonging to RBA category cannot work to her prejudice. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who have lesser merit than the petitioner under RBA category could not have been selected in the face of better and superior claim of the petitioner.

Therefore, without going further into the matter, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage by providing that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall look into the grievance of the petitioner, as projected in this petition, and take appropriate remedial measures by placing the petitioner at serial No.1 of the select list under the RBA category in view of her highest merit in the RBA category which may necessitate ouster of respondent No.5 from the select list. Let appropriate orders in this regard be passed within a period of four weeks from the date certified copy of this order is served upon them. Needless to say that upon correction of the aforesaid select list, as directed above, the follow up engagement order shall be issued without further wastage of time. Till the exercise, as directed above, is undertaken and concluded by the respondents, no order of appointment in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall be issued.