AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner claims to be a competing candidate in the selection process initiated by the respondents against the post of Constable in District
Cadre, Pulwama, in the year 1997. Upon his non-selection, the petitioner is seeking the relief similar to the one granted by this Court, while allowing
SWP No. 4230 of 1997 titled Ashiq Hussain Mir & Ors. v. State of JK & Ors.’, to the petitioners therein.
Perusal of the order passed in the writ petition aforesaid reveals that this Court directed the respondents to constitute a Committee to examine the
record with reference to the claim of the petitioners therein. The Committee so constituted had, on examination of the records, found that some of the
candidates who had secured more marks than the last cut-off point of 41 marks had been dropped from the selection list, whileas candidates with
lesser points had been selected. On the basis of the report of the Committee, it is stated that the respondent No.2 has issued appointment orders in
favour of twelve such candidates who had secured more merit than the last cut-off point, i.e. the 41 points, in the selection process vide order No.
2142 of 2015 dated 23rd of July, 2015. The case of the petitioner is that he has secured 42 points, i.e. 01 point more than the last cut-off point, but,
despite that, no appointment order was issued in his favour, perhaps under the impression that the present petitioner was not a party in the said writ
petition. It is stated that the petitioner, despite having more marks than the last cut-off point, has been left out. It being so, the petitioner claims that, in
conformity with the ‘Equality Clause’ of the Constitution and in order to do complete justice in the matter, the respondents be directed to
consider the claim of the petitioner as well and accord him the same treatment as has been accorded to the beneficiaries of order dated 23rd of July,
2015.
A plain reading of the order dated 23rd of July, 2015, brings it to the fore that some non-selectee candidates, being aggrieved, having applied for
the post of Constable, among others, in the J&K Executive Police, under OM category in the year 1997 from District Pulwama, had approached this
Court in four separate writ petitions, being SWP Nos. 4230/1997; 1330/1998; 4396/1997; and 762/1999, seeking their appointment as Constables on the
plea that they have secured higher merit than that of the selected candidates. On the basis of directions issued by this Court in the said writ petitions,
operative portion whereof has been taken note in the said order itself, to the effect to constitute a Committee of two senior Officers to look into the
entire gamut of the matter. The Committee was also directed to submit the report to the Court and to the higher authorities. The Committee so
constituted, on examination of the records, found that some of the petitioners had obtained more points than the last cut-off point, i.e. 41 points and,
therefore, recommended their selection and appointment, numbering 12 candidates. It is only after the issuance of the order of appointment in favour
of the aforesaid twelve candidates, that the petitioner, after learning about the aforesaid order of appointment as also the fact that his merit is more
than the last cut-off point, approached this Court by medium of the instant writ petition.
On notice, the respondents have filed their objections, resisting the claim of the petitioner, besides other grounds, on the ground that the relief
prayed for in the writ petition is hit by the principle of delay and latches.
The moot question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner can be allowed the benefit as regards directing the
respondents to have his case examined by the Committee constituted under the directions of this Court in the writ petitions aforesaid, filed earlier in
point of time, with further direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for selection and appointment against the post of Constable, which
have now become available. In my considered view, the answer to this question has to be in the negative on the sole ground that the petitioner has not
questioned the selection of the last selected candidate having obtained less marks than him so as to enable the Court to grant such relief in his favour
by quashing the selection of the last selected candidate.
Law on the subject is well settled. The posts which become available after culmination of a selection process cannot be, by any stretch of
imagination, utilized for the non-selected candidates of the earlier selection process(es). For all purposes, the posts available later in point of time, after
culmination of a particular selection process, are, necessarily, required to be filled up in accordance with the rules by allowing all the eligible candidates
to compete in the selection in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Besides, the relief prayed for in the writ petition is hit by the
principle of delay and latches as, admittedly, the petitioner has approached this Court after a period of about 19 years. Â
In view of the preceding analysis, the petition of the petitioner is found to be devoid of any merit and, as a sequel thereto, same shall stand
dismissed alongwith all connected MP(s).