AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals are filed against a common order made in SWP Nos. 875/2012, 092/2012, 925/2012, 985/2012, 1177/2012, 1578/2012,
1178/2012, 1180/2012,1060/2012,1063/2012, 980/2012, 75/2012,456/2012 & 395/2013, dated 15.07.2014 wherein challenge was made to
the selection made to the posts of Constable in Photography Cadre in pay Band-1 Rs. 5200-20200+1800 Grade pay plus allowance, which was
advertised by notification dated 01.03.2011.
Even though in the advertisement there was no mention about selection to be made district-wise and no mention about number of vacancies for
each district for selection, the selecting authority selected candidates on district wise. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners preferred the writ
petitions and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions holding that the post is not a district cadre post and they are transferable to other
districts and the procedure adopted by the selecting authority is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India particularly in light of
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Singh and others v. Union of India and others [(1997) 1 SCC 60]. After
quashing the selection list drawn on the basis of merit obtained on district-wise, directed to re-frame the Select List based on merits with reference
to all the vacancies to be filled up and give appointment orders. Thereafter State level select list was prepared and appellants names were not
found in the select list, hence appellants have preferred these appeals against the order of the writ court contending that the selection should be
district-wise and order of the writ court is wrong.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in decision reported in 2006 (7) SCC 161 (Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic and Anr. v. Anu Lamba and
Ors.) by relying on a earlier Constitution Bench judgment reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secy. State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi) held that
appointments made in derogation of the equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be void and of no effect. In
paragraph No. 14 of the decision reported in AIR 2002 SC 2877 (Kailash Chand Sharma etc. etc. v. State of Rajasthan and others), it is
held that residence within a District or rural areas of that District and preferring a local area person for public employment is in violation of Article
16 (2) & (3) of the Constitution of India and any legislative and executive action framed or issued cannot sustain before the Court of law.
In light of the above referred judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the principles laid down therein being followed by the learned Single
Judge, we are unable to appreciate the point raised in the appeals as the appointment to the post of Constable in Photography Cadre is a public
post in government which shall be in accordance with the rights conferred under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as said Articles are
equally applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir under Section 10 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, therefore we find no reason to
interfere with the order of the writ court.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that number of vacancies available on the date of advertisement notice dated 01.03.2011
and the advertisement stated that applications are invited to fill up vacant posts without mentioning the number of vacancies. Therefore, all available
vacancies shall be filled and in case appellants are coming within the available vacancies as on 01.03.2011 as per the re-framed merit list, their
claim may be considered.
Learned counsel for the official respondents submits that the official respondents will ascertain as to the actual number of vacancies available on
the date of notification dated 01.03.2011 and in case any of the appellants is coming within the rank as per the vacancies available, their claim will
be considered. Thus, the grievance of the appellants is partially accepted. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of eight
weeks from the date a copy of this order is served on the official respondents.
All the appeals are disposed of.
The appeal filed by one Riyaz Ahmed Mir and five others against the same judgment along with an application to condone delay is also disposed
in above terms at the condone delay stage.