Shakeel Hussain vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors

Tashi Rabstan, J

The facts, as gathered from the writ record, are that pursuant to Advertisement Notice No.06/2013, petitioner herein applied for the post of Village Level Worker (VLW) under Item No.497 of District Cadre Doda. The select list was issued on 12.02.2015 and the selected candidates joined against the post-in-question. Thereafter, another select list of Teachers came to be issued on 01.06.2015. Six persons, who were earlier selected as Village Lever Workers and joined against the said post, also came to be selected as Teachers. They accordingly resigned from the post of Village Lever Workers and joined against the post of Teachers.

The case as projected by the petitioner is that he being next in merit and figuring at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list was entitled for appointment against the post of Village Lever Worker. His further case is that in SWP No.879/2014 a direction had been issued on 02.04.2014 for not finalizing the selection process of Teachers. Ultimately the select list of Teachers came to be issued on 01.06.2015. It is averred that had the respondents taken effective steps to get the stay vacated in time, the select list of Teachers would have been issued earlier, i.e., much before the issuance of select list of Village Level Workers, and in this way the six candidates, who were earlier selected as Village Level Workers, would have been selected as such, because they would have been selected as Teachers, thus making a way for petitioner herein to be selected as Village Level Worker being at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list. It is, however, averred that when the six persons resigned from the post of Village Level Worker so as to join against the post of Teacher, the petitioner approached the respondents for appointing him against the vacancies created by the resignation of candidates who have joined as Teachers, however, the respondents did not pay any heed to his request. Hence, the present writ petition.

Objections have been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 averring therein that as per Rule 14(7) of the J&K Civil Services Decentralization & Recruitment Rules, 2010, the merit list or the waiting list shall not operate for any vacancy caused on account of resignation by any selected after having joined on the post pursuant to appointment.

Objections have also been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 averring therein that as per Rule 14 of the Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, the Board is required to draw up a waiting list of 25% of the total number of selected candidates. Accordingly, the waiting list was issued on 12.02.2015 along with the select list. It is further averred that the petitioner was not selected against the post of Village Level Worker nor his name was reflected in the waiting list.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the writ file.

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce here under Rule 14(7) of the Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010:

Procedure for preparation of select lists by the Board:

(1) .... (6)

(7) The concerned Selection Committees of the Board shall also draw up a waiting list of 25% of the total number of selected candidates and forward the same, through the Board, to the requisitioning authority for consideration against drop-out vacancies. The waiting list shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date the original select list is sent to the requisitioning authority. The Selection Committees shall not maintain or recommend any select or waiting list for any future vacancy or any vacancy caused on account of resignation by any selectee after appointment."

Admittedly, in terms of said rule, the Selection Committees are required not to maintain or recommend any select or waiting list for any future vacancy or any vacancy caused on account of resignation by any selectee for appointment. In the present case too, the petitioner is seeking to operate the waiting list on account of resignation of six Village Level Workers. However, in terms of the said rule, the Board is debarred from operating the waiting list for any vacancy on account of resignation by any selectee after having joined on the post pursuant to appointment. Such vacancies are treated as fresh vacancies and in respect of which selection process has to be initiated de-novo. Therefore, on this account alone, the writ petition is required to be dismissed. Otherwise too, the Service Selection Board has taken a categoric stand that in terms of Rule 14(7) of the Decentralization and Recruitment Rules (supra), it had drawn up a waiting list of 25% of the total number of selected candidates and the name of petitioner was neither figuring in the select list nor in the waiting list. Since the name of petitioner was not figuring in the waiting list, as such no question arises for operating the waiting list so far as it pertained to petitioner herein. Hence on this score also the writ petition is required to be dismissed.

In the case of State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma and another, AIR 2001 SC 2900, the Supreme Court observed that no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising out of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. It was also observed that with the appointment of the candidates for the posts the lists gets exhausted and subsequent vacancy caused due to resignation becomes future vacancy and candidate figuring in waiting list has no legally protected right to get appointed to any vacancy arising subsequently. It would be profitable to reproduce Paragraph no. 4 of the judgment as hereunder:-

"4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, in our view, the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cannot be sustained. As rightly contended for the appellant-State, the Notification issued inviting applications was in respect of one post and the first candidate in the select panel was not only offered but on his acceptance of offer came to be appointed and it was only subsequently that he came to resign. With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select panel prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising out of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently......."

Viewed thus, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected MP.