Mushtaq Ahmad Reshi vs State of J&K

Mr. Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. (Oral) - Record is produced by learned counsel for respondents.

This petition is filed in the year 1998 and survives for consideration only in respect of petitioner no. 3, 6, 7 and 8.

Petitioners responded to advertisement notice no. 03/1997 dated 29th April, 1997, and sought consideration for being selected/appointed on

the post of Junior Engineer Grade II in PWD department. The selection process was initiated on the basis of 'Note 3' appearing in Column (6)

issued vide SRO 180/1997. The selection process was concluded on the basis of the 'Note 3' which provided for making selection/appointment in

the ratio of 1:3 between degree and diploma holders.

Degree holders being aggrieved of the fixation of ratio 1:3 between them and diploma holders challenged the same before this Court. The matter

ultimately landed at Hon'ble the Supreme Court. After disposal of matter by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the State Government during the

pendency of the selection process issued SRO 5/2004 dated 9th January, 2004, where under 'note 3' appearing in Column (6) below the heading

method of recruitment"" against class III category ""A"" was deleted. The respondent selection board, in view of the stand taken, reframed the merit

list/selection list of the candidates in view of SRO 5/2004. However, it has been pleaded in reply affidavit that last selected candidate amongst

diploma holders obtained 60.74 points and last selected candidate amongst degree holders obtained 61.22 points.

The further issue involved in this case is whether the selection committee could adjudge the suitability of 250 competing candidates in one day.

What appears from the aforesaid fact situation is that after the issuance of SRO 5/2004 the diploma holders and degree holders constituted a

single class. The selection process on the basis of which merit list/ selection list was prepared, proceeded on the basis of making selection of Junior

Engineers on the basis of 1:3 ratio between degree holders and diploma holders. The selection authority while considering the candidates for their

selection obviously must have at the back of their minds the ratio of 1:3. This ratio definitely must have influenced the minds of members of

selection committee while adjudging merit of the competing candidates. The merit adjudged in the selection process thus could not become basis

for preparing the selection list treating the diploma holders and degree holders as a one single class as no separate ratio was fixed in respect of

diploma holders. The selection process in this fact situation would become unsustainable in law as yardstick fixed for making selections in a

particular factual and legal background could not be made the basis for making selection when the fact situation of maintaining ratio was altogether

changed.

The selection committees in normal course could have four hours available in a particular day for conducting interview of the competing

candidates. In the present case 250 candidates have been interviewed in one single day which would mean that merit, suitability and capacity of

every single candidate has been adjudged in less than one minute. It is not possible to adjudge the suitability, knowledge, aptitude of a competing

candidate in less than in one minute of time.

In view of the aforesaid observations the entire selection process comes under cloud. It violated the constitutional rights of petitioners

guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

However, at this distance of time it may not be appropriate to declare the selection of selectees as illegal, as they by now must have settled in

life.

Justice, however, is to be meted out to the petitioners. As already stated they are excluded from being selected/appointed in the selection

process which in the facts of this case was neither legal nor fair. Petitioners had secured more merit than some of the selected candidates but in the

interview it appears that their merit has been converted into demerit.

For the above stated reasons this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner :

Respondent No. 1 is directed to offer appointment to the petitioners 3, 6, 7 and 8 and issue the order of appointment for posts of Junior

Engineer Grade II. Orders in this behalf be passed within two weeks from the date copy of this order is served on the said authority. The

petitioners at the time of initiation of selection process were within prescribed age limit, thus for the purpose of their appointment they shall be

deemed to be within age.

Review No. 16A of 2008

Mr. Z. A. Qureshi, Sr. Adv. for the petitioner.

In view of the decision rendered in SWP No. 1141/1998, the review petitioner being similarly placed with petitioners in the aforesaid writ

petition has to be given same treatment. The perusal of the order under review shows that all the issues raised at the time of hearing were not

considered and dealt with. A case of review of the order is made out.

This review petition is allowed. The order under review is recalled. SWP No. 428/99 is disposed of in terms of the order passed in SWP No.

1141/1998. Respondent no. 1 is directed to offer appointment to the petitioner and appoint him on the post of Junior Engineer Grade II. The

necessary orders in this behalf be passed within two weeks in the similar manner as has been directed in SWP No. 1141/1998.