Joginder Singh vs State through Commissioner-Cum-Secretary

T.S. Doabia, J.—In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondents No. 5 to 10 as Laboratory Assistants and

Library Assistants. These appointments came to be made in pursuance of an advertisement notice No. 1 of 1992. This was issued on 11.5.1992.

The petitioner participated in the process of selection. He was, however, not selected. He has challenged the selection of respondents referred to

above inter alia, on the following grounds :

(i) that the post of Laboratory and Library Assistant can be filled only by the J&K State Subordinate Services Recruitment Board constituted

under the J&K Subordinate Services Recruitment Board Act of 1990.

(ii) that the process of selection was undertaken by the District Recruitment Board and this is not in consonance with the provisions referred to

above.

(iii) that the minimum qualification which was required to be there, was Matric with Science and this qualification was not available with

respondents referred to above.

It is precisely on the above pleas the appointment of aforementioned respondents is being impugned in the present petition.

The respondents have taken a stand that the question as to whether Recruitment to class IV posts could be made by the Board or not, should

be determined by this Court. They have not taken any stand of their own in this regard. As a matter of fact, the Government order bearing No.

462GR of 1990 issued on 16th April, 1990 is being relied upon in the objections preferred by respondents No. 1 and 4.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that on account of Government Order No. 462GR of 1990 issued on 16.4.1990,

the posts were required to be filled through the medium of District Recruitment Boards. While placing reliance on the above Government Order, it

is stated that the selection process was undertaken by the Competent Authority. It is stated that such a course could be adopted in terms of

Section 2(c) of the Act referred to above.

So far as the qualifications of various respondents are concerned, the stand taken on behalf of two of the respondents who have filed the

counter is that they did undergo study in the course of Science while passing the Matriculation examination. It is, accordingly, argued that the plea

raised by the petitioner is not sound.

Before dealing with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be apt to notice Section 2(c) of the Act referred to above. This

reads as under :

Application of the Act : The provisions of this Act shall apply to recruitment to all nongazetted posts under the Government excepting

xxxxxxxxxx

(c) posts for which special treatment is expressly provided in any law rule, order or notification, for the time being in force :

xxxxxxxxxx

A perusal of the aforementioned provision makes it apparent that the Government can by any Rule, Order or Notification exempt any category

of posts from the purview of the Service Selection Recruitment Board referred to above. If this be the situation, then the argument raised that on

account of selection having not been made by the Selection Board, the selection is bad loses significance. This argument is accordingly repelled.

As indicated above, only two of the respondents have filed objections. They have taken a stand that they had passed their Matriculation

Examination with Science as one of the subjects. For this, reliance is being placed on Annexures ""R/A"" and ""R/B"". A perusal of these does indicate

that the two respondents i.e. respondents No. 7 and 8 did pass their Matriculation Examination with science as one of the subjects. Therefore, no

valid objection can be raised to their appointments.

So far as respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 10 are concerned, objections have not been filed on their behalf. It appears that notices sent to them were

received back unserved. In these circumstances, a direction is given to the respondentauthorities to go into the question as to whether respondents

No. 5, 6 and 10 did or did not possess the bare minimum qualification i.e. they also had science as one of the subjects in the Matriculation

Examination. Let this exercise be undertaken by respondentauthorities at their own level. The respondentauthorities would hear these respondents

and pass detailed orders visavis the above contention. The decision so taken would be communicated to the Registry of this Court and also to the

counsel for the petitioner. Let this exercise be completed within a period of three months. The period of three months would begin from the date a

copy of this order is communicated to the respondentauthorities by the Registry of this Court.

So far the appointment of respondent No. 9 is concerned, this is being challenged on the ground that originally she was residing within the

District of Kathua but after her marriage, she started residing in the City of Jammu and therefore, she could not avail the benefit of her prior

residence in District Kathua. I am of the opinion that this argument if of no avail.

Merely because of marriage with a person who is residing at Jammu, the respondent No. 9 has shifted to Jammu would not mean that she was

not entitled to seek appointment in Kathua District also. There is no allegation in the petition that this respondent for all intents and purpose had

abandoned her intention to not to say in the District of Kathua. As such, this objection cannot be accepted. So far as the other respondents are

concerned, the Government would take notice of the observations made hereinabove.

Disposed of accordingly.