Rakesh Khajuria vs State of Jammu and Kashmir

T.S. Doabia, J.—Nine petitioners found their names included in the select list but the actual letter of appointment has not been issued. It is

this factor which led them to approach this Court.

The respondentState of Jammu and Kashmir in the department of Agriculture Production sent a requisition to the Jammu and Kashmir Service

Selection Recruitment Board. It was proposed to fill the vacancies to the post of Junior Agriculture Assistant. An advertisement notice in this

regard was issued. This is dated 29th March, 1996. One fifty six vacancies were notified. It was categorically mentioned that 49 posts are for

open category, 20 for Scheduled Caste, 25 for Scheduled Tribes, 2 for Social Caste, Seven vacancies were for the residents of the area known as

Line of Actual Control. 50 posts were reserved for residents of Backward Area. One post was reserved for other categories. As per the

petitioners as the total number of posts were 156 and as only 49 posts were for open category, the matter was referred to the Law department.

The Law Department expressed an opinion that only 50% posts could be reserved for Reserved Categories. It was accordingly suggested that 78

persons could be selected from Open merit category. This opinion was given before the actual selection. In pursuance of the selection, 78

candidates were recommended for selection by the Board. These were duly notified. Copy of this is annexure P.2. The petitioners as indicated

above were not given appointment. Another notification with a view to fill 24 vacancies was also notified. This was issued on 24th April, 1997.

The posts of Junior Agriculture Assistants figure at Serial No. 119. The petitioners submit that once a decision was taken by the

respondentauthorities that 78 posts are to be filled from Open Merit Category and once their names were included in the select list, then there was

no justification to deny letter of appointment to them.

Respondents have filed objections. The stand taken by them is that there was some backlog meant for reserved category and this was required

to be cleared. It is stated that in December, 1995, 250 posts were notified. Out of this, 143 were earmarked for open category. Against 143

posts, 90 candidates were recommended for open merit category. It is accordingly submitted that as there were surplus posts already filled from

candidates belonging to open merit category, therefore, this imbalance was sought to be set right. It was in these circumstances, the appointment

letters were issued only visavis 68 candidates.

It is further stated that one candidate out of 68 candidates did not join, therefore, the candidates upto Serial No. 69 have been issued the

appointment letters. Nine candidates could not be considered in view of the stand taken by the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even this stand of the respondentauthorities is not justifiable. He is placing reliance on Rule

13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules of 1994. It is submitted that a plain reading of the aforementioned rule makes if clear that the

number of vacancies which are meant for open merit category and reserved category should be filled in the same year. If there is a backlog, it can

be carried to the next year but the number of posts for reserved category are not to exceed 50% of the total available vacancies. It is further stated

that two attempts are to be made with a view to fill the backlog and if the reserved vacancies remain vacant for a period exceeding three years,

then the vacancies are to be treated as dereserved.

The factual position to which no dispute has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the State is an under :

i. that in the year 1995, 250 posts were notified, 90 posts were filled from open category;

ii. that on 5th April, 96, 156 vacancies were notified. 49 posts were reserved for open category. Some legal opinion is sought. It was indicated that

out of 156 posts, 78 should go to the Open category;

iii. that 78 vacancies were notified for reserved category;

iv. Notwithstanding the names of 78 candidates were recommended for appointment, job was not offered to them on the ground that nine

vacancies were meant for the candidates of reserved category.

The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the total number of candidates which were to be selected in the open category were

indicated as 68. It is, however, not in dispute that the total number of vacancies which were notified were 156. If above be the position, then on

account of the provisions contained in R. 13 of the Reservation Rules, the posts in reserved categories in one year cannot be more than 50%.

It be seen that if the quota of reserved categories is taken note of, it is less than 50%. It was pointed out that it comes to 42%. By the operation

of aforementioned Rule, 8% vacancies can be filled up from backlog quota. That appears to be the spirit of R. 13 of the aforementioned Rules. As

indicated above, in the year 1996, 156 seats were notified. On account of R. 13, not more than 50% could be reserved for reserved categories. If

this be the situation, then the Recruitment Board rightly sent a list for 78 candidates. Petitioners fall in this category. They cannot be denied

appointment on this ground.

The learned counsel for the State submits that the panel remains alive for one year.

It be seen that an interim order was passed by this Court on 9th May 1997. In any case, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the job by

placing wrong interpretation on the rules.

This petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner are held entitled to the appointment. The State authorities are directed to issue appointment

letters in their favour.

Disposed of accordingly.

Petition allowed.