Mohd. Tariq Rayaz vs Chairman, SSB and Others

Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.—Advertisement notification No. 06 of 2005 dated 21st November, 2005 was issued by Subordinate Service

Recruitment Board (for short SSB). Besides others, posts of Assistant Tourism Officer in the Tourism Department, were also notified. The

eligibility criteria was fixed as Graduate from recognized University having adequate knowledge of History, Geography of State with knowledge of

one foreign language or have undergone training in any line of tourism/travel from a recognized institute. The petitioner, as also the private

respondent being eligible, sought consideration for being selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Tourism Officer under RBA category.

Before conducting of the written test the following criteria was notified by the SSB:

i) Graduation/BTS 30 points

ii) Post-Graduation (Tourism) 20 points

iii) Certificate Course 04 points

iv) Diploma in Tourism/Hotel Mgt 06 points

v) Written Test

a) History 10 points

b) Geography 10 points

vi) Viva-Voce 20

Total 100 points

After the selection process was over, a tentative selection list was issued in which petitioner was shown to have been tentatively selected having

secured 60.85 points, whereas in the final selection list the private respondent was shown to have been selected.

The petitioner being aggrieved of selection of the private respondent has challenged the same in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner

who was tentatively selected was illegally, arbitrarily shown to be not selected in the final selection list as additional 6 points were given to the

private respondent on the ground that he, in addition, possessed diploma in Tourism.

The Court on 7th October, 2010, directed that till further orders, appointment, if any, made in pursuance to the select list dated 6th of

September, 2010 against the post of Assistant Tourism Officer, so far as it relates to the private respondent shall remain stayed.

On notice issued, respondents have filed reply affidavit.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to explain that the petitioner has been wrongly excluded for being selected on the post of

Assistant Tourism Officer, though, he was initially shown to have been tentatively selected having secured more marks than the private respondent.

Learned counsel submitted that 06 points awarded to private respondent for having additional qualification of diploma in Tourism has been wrongly

and illegally given to him, inasmuch as, the private respondent has been awarded points for being possessing of degree of Post Graduation in

Tourism and could not be given further marks for, having diploma in Tourism. Learned counsel also submitted that it is quite unreasonable and

irrational to award marks twice to a candidate in respect of a degree qualification and for diploma qualification as well. Learned counsel further

submitted that the criteria which is reproduced in Para 8 of the writ petition, was notified by the SSB before initiating the actual selection process

inasmuch as the test was held after notifying the aforementioned criteria.

Learned counsel for the SSB submitted that initially no marks were awarded to private respondent for having diploma in Tourism, but when he

filed objection to the tentative selection list, the mistake was rectified by SSB and marks were awarded to him for having diploma in Tourism and

resultantly, he emerged as highest meritorious candidate in the RBA Category and was accordingly selected for being appointed on the post of

Assistant Tourism Officer. Learned counsel also referred to Annexure-F of the writ petition to indicate that besides awarding marks to a candidate

having Post Graduation qualification in Tourism, marks were also awarded to the said candidate (s) being possessed of diploma in Tourism.

The perusal of Annexure - F of the writ petition does substantiate the argument of learned counsel for the SSB.

Learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that the petitioner having participated in the selection process on the basis of criteria

notified by SSB, is estopped under law from raising this ground at this stage. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in case titled Dhananjay Malik and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, to substantiate his point that the petitioner after having participated

in the selection process on the basis of notified criteria cannot now turn around and challenge the same.

100 points have been fixed by the SSB for awarding points on different counts. For post Graduation in Tourism 20 points and 06 marks for

diploma in Tourism/Hotel Management have been fixed. The selection of a candidate was to be made on the basis of aggregate 100 points. In

view of the criteria fixed, a candidate besides having post graduation degree in Tourism may have certificate course or diploma in Tourism/Hotel

Management. He was to be awarded points for being possessed of these qualifications as well. The selection authority was duty bound to follow

the criteria. The criteria was not challenged by the petitioner, but instead participated in the selection process. The ground now raised in this

petition is rendered inconsequential and the petitioner is estopped from raising such a ground after the selection was over.

The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. (supra) disentitles

the petitioner to claim relief on the ground projected in the writ petition.

For the above stated reasons, this petition is dismissed alongwith all connected CMP(s).

Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.