J&K Service Selection Board vs Bimla Devi

B.S. Walia, J. - Instant Letters Patent Appeal impugns the judgment dated 01.04.2005 in SWP No. 2137/2002, in case titled 'Bimla Devi &

Anr. v. State & Ors.' with prayer for setting aside the same.

Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant Letters Patent Appeal are that two posts of Junior Ophthalmic Assistant, one in Open

category and the other in RBA category, Divisional Cadre Jammu, were advertised by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board i.e.

appellant, vide Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2000, dated 27.10.2000 stipulating qualification of matric with Diploma of Ophthalmic Assistant

from SMF or any other institution recognised by the J&K Government or anybody authorised by it. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 claimed to be eligible,

applied for the post of Junior Ophthalmic Assistant in the open category and on the basis of short-listing were called for interview but were not

successful whereas respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were selected in the open and RBA category, respectively. Grievance of respondent Nos. 1 & 2

before the Writ Court was that no criteria had been adopted and by giving weightage illegally to ineligible candidates, the official respondents had

converted demerit into merit. Selection of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 was, accordingly, challenged by respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

That in the objections by the official respondents before the Writ Court, the stand was that out of 100 points, 80 were reserved for technical

qualification and only 20 points for viva voce and that as far as selection of respondent No. 4 was concerned, he had been selected in the RBA

category, therefore, there could be no challenge to his selection on account of the candidates who had challenged the selection namely respondent

Nos. 1 & 2 having applied under the open category.

That as regards the challenge of selection of respondent No.3, learned Writ Court noticed that as per the criteria 80 points were reserved for

technical qualifications besides no weightage was given to other basic qualification i.e. matric or higher academic qualification and that the issue was

squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in SWP No. 2844/2001, in case titled as Bharat Bhushan v. State & Ors. 2004 (1) JKJ 166

[HC] decided on 17.10.2003. Relevant extract of the decision of this Court in SWP No. 2844/2001, in case titled as 'Bharat Bhushan v.

State & Ors.' decided on 17.10.2003 as was noticed by learned Writ Court is reproduced as under:-

From the Advertisement Notice, it appears that for making selection, respondents were required to take into consideration Matric with diploma in

Laboratory Assistant or any other equal qualification. Therefore, the criteria for selection has to be Matric and diploma. 80% weightage was to be

given to both these qualifications and 20% to the viva voce. The selection committee though fixed 80 points for weightage to the basic qualification

and 20 points for viva voce but while making selection, no weightage whatsoever has been given to the academic qualification i.e. Matric or any

higher qualification and the entire weightage of 80 points has been applied to technical qualification i.e. diploma course in Laboratory Technology.

Matric with diploma i.e. the academic qualification and the technical qualification both being the basic qualifications weightage was required to be

given to both these qualifications. Respondents were not entitled to deviate from the criteria as advertised in advertisement notice and fixed at the

time of selection. Since no weightage whatsoever has been given to the academic qualification i.e. matriculation or above, the selection is in

contravention to the criteria laid down in the advertisement notice as also initially fixed by the selection committee. The selection of private

respondents 3 to 7 thus cannot be said to be in accordance with law and is thus liable to be quashed.

That as per the decision of this Court in SWP No.2844/ 2001, advertisement notice for making selection was required to take into

consideration Matric with diploma as Laboratory Assistant or any other equal qualification. Accordingly, the criteria for selection had to be Matric

with diploma and 80% weightage was to be given to both qualifications and 20% points for viva voce and that although the Selection Committee

fixed 80 points for weightage to be basic qualification and 20 point for viva voce but while making selection, no weightage whatsoever had been

given to the academic qualification i.e. Matric or any higher qualification and the entire weightage of 80 points had been applied to technical

qualification i.e. diploma course in Laboratory Technology, that the officials respondents were not entitled to deviate from the criteria as given in

the advertisement notice and since no weightage had been given to the academic qualification i.e. Matriculation and above, the selection was found

to be in contravention to the criteria laid down in the advertisement notice as also initially fixed by the Selection Committee.

In view thereof, SWP No. 2844/2001, was allowed. Selection of private respondent Nos. 3 to 7 as Laboratory Assistant in District Rajouri

were quashed and set aside and SSRB was directed to make fresh selection out of candidates who had applied in response to advertisement

notice after giving due weightage to matriculation and higher qualification equally along with technical qualification, with Marks awarded to the

selected candidates on the basis of earlier selection in the interview to remain the same and that after giving due weightage to matriculation, higher

qualification, if any, and technical qualification along with the marks secured in viva voce, a fresh select list was to be drawn up.

That the decision of the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 2844/2001, on challenge by way of LPASW No. 235/2003, was upheld vide

judgment dated 12.02.2004.

That the learned Single Judge, while noticing the aforesaid decision, allowed SWP No. 2137/2002, qua respondent No. 3 and directed the

Services Selection Board to make selection afresh out of the candidates who had appeared pursuant to the aforesaid notification after giving due

weightage of matriculation, higher qualification, if any, besides technical qualification and the marks obtained in the viva voce, and thereafter to

draw a fresh list and make appointment on the said basis within a period of three months. It was further directed that the marks of the candidates in

the interview would remain the same.

That the decision of the learned Writ Court in SWP No. 2137/2002, has been challenged, inter alia, on the ground that while challenge before

the Writ Court was qua the selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 3 & 4, orders had been passed by the learned Writ Court only qua

respondent No. 3 without passing any order in respect of respondent No. 4, therefore, unless judgement relied upon by the learned Writ Court

was uniformly applied to both selected candidates i.e., respondent Nos. 3 & 4, the same would result in practical difficulty in carrying out the

directions contained in the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court. Further that in SWP No. 2199/2001, titled 'Kuldeep Kumar v. State &

Ors.' challenge to selection of Laboratory Assistant District Cadre Jammu made by Notification No. 01 of 2000, dated 21.09.2000 on the same

ground as in SWP No. 2844/2001, had been dismissed by the Writ Court on 10.04.2002 besides, LPASW No. 178/2002, against the order of

the learned Writ Court as also Review No. 26 of 2002, in the LPASW was also dismissed on 12.07.2002./29.01.2004 and that in the

aforementioned circumstances, it was essential that uniformity be maintained for selection criteria and in case the judgment impugned in SWP No.

2137/2002, was directed to be implemented by the Court, in that event two different criteria would have to be applied for two posts advertised by

one advertisement notice.

Both the points raised are without any merit. Decision of the learned Single Judge dated 01.04.2005 impugned in the instant Letters Patent

Appeal was on challenge by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to their non-selection in the Open category. No doubt respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were arrayed

as respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in SWP No. 2137 of 2002, but the fact remains that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had no right to be appointed against RBA

category post i.e. category against which respondent No. 4 had been selected and in the eventuality of the Writ petition being allowed, respondent

Nos. 1 & 2 were entitled at best to be considered for appointment as per the fresh criteria against the posts advertised in the Open Merit Category

only and had no right to be considered for selection in RBA category.

Secondly, the plea that decision in SWP No. 2199/2001, dismissing challenge to the selection of Laboratory Assistant as advertised vide a

different advertisement was upheld in LPA No. 178/2002 and even Review LPA No. 26/2002, in respect thereto was dismissed therefore the

same be applied in the instant case does not merit acceptance since the same pertains to a different selection, therefore, the same cannot be

pressed into account for taking a view different from the one which was followed by the learned Writ Court in SWP No. 2137/2002, in terms of

the decision of LPASW No. 235/2003, upholding the decision of the learned Writ Court in SWP No. 2844/2001, which involved challenge on

identical ground as was raised in the writ petition leading to the filing of the instant Letters Patent Appeal. Besides no writ petition was filed by the

candidates belonging to RBA category challenging selection to the post of Ophthalmic Assistant nor has any LPA been filed by respondent No. 3

against the decision of the learned Writ Court dated 01.04.2005 in SWP No. 2137/2002.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the instant Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to

costs.