Sushil Kumar vs State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others

M.M. Kumar, C.J.—This appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 08.07.2010 rendered

by the learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the claim made by the appellant that the respondents did not fulfill the requisite qualification for

appointment as Senior Horticulture Technician. It is pertinent to mention that an advertisement notice was issued on 21.11.2005 inviting

applications, inter alia, for the post of Senior Horticulture Technician. The appellant applied under Scheduled Caste Category. In the selection

process he was not short listed for interview because he had secured 32.1 points whereas the last short listed candidate in Scheduled Caste

Category secured 46.26 points which is a huge gap. The learned Writ Court has held that the appellant did not challenge the short listing criteria

and process of selection but has challenged the selection of private respondents which is wholly impermissible. It has further been held that once

the appellant has applied for the post under Scheduled Caste Category his writ petition could not be entertained to challenge the selection of

candidates who have been selected in other categories. In respect of other contentions raised by the appellant that the private respondents did not

fulfill the requisite qualification of B.Sc. Horticulture or B.Sc. Agriculture with Horticulture as a major subject, the learned Writ Court held that

once the appellant had participated in the selection process without questioning the advertisement then he cannot be permitted to challenge the

selection. In that regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dhananjay Malik and

Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others,

Mr. Amrish Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the stand of the Services Selection Board-respondent No. 2

in the counter affidavit is that the selection committee did not undertake any exercise to find out whether the candidate with qualification of B.Sc.

Agriculture had studied Horticulture as a major subject during their graduation. Therefore, it must be concluded that the appellant, who was one of

the candidates holding basic degree of B.Sc. Horticulture was entitled to be considered and appointed.

Sarv/Shri K.M. Bhatti and Rahul Pant, learned counsel for the respondents, have vehemently argued that there are five private respondents and

each one of them fulfills requisite qualification as per the rules and advertisement. According to the learned counsel, all the private respondents are

either B.Sc. Horticulture or B.Sc. Agriculture with Horticulture as major subject. It has also been pointed out by them that some of them are B.Sc.

Agriculture with M.Sc. Horticulture. They have furnished the detailed list and have produced the official record as well.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal does not warrant acceptance and is devoid of

merit. In terms of advertisement notice dated 21.11.2005 the post of Senior Horticulture Technician figures at serial No. 31. The educational

qualification notified is as under:-

B.Sc. Horticulture or B.Sc. Agriculture with Horticulture as major subject.

The qualification notified in the advertisement is consistent with the Jammu and Kashmir Horticulture (Subordinate) Services Recruitment Rules,

1998 issued vide SRO 235 of 27.06.2002.

In the light of statutory qualification we have perused and examine the record and find that each one of the selected candidates would fulfill the

academic qualification, which would be patent from the following table:-

Particulars Educational

S. No.qualification

Category

Respondent No. 3-

Shakeeb Javed

B.Sc. Horticulture RBA

Respondent No. 4-

Varinder Kumar

B.Sc. Agriculture and

M.Sc. Horticulture.

RBA

Respondent No. 5-Sanjeev Kumar

3.

B.Sc. Agriculture, M.Sc. Horticulture and undergoing Ph.D. in Floriculture & landscaping at the relevant time. Scheduled Caste

Respondent No. 6-Mohd. Shafiat Rehman

4.

Deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 27.12.2012.

Respondent No. 7-Dheeraj Sharma

B.Sc. Agriculture and M.Sc. Horticulture.

Handicapped

A perusal of the aforesaid table prepared from the record would show that each one of the private respondents is either B.Sc. Horticulture or

B.Sc. Agriculture with M.Sc. Horticulture. Therefore, no doubt is left that the selected candidates respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and 7 fulfill the statutory

qualification as per advertisement notice dated 21.11.2005.

We also endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge that once the appellant has competed under the Scheduled Caste Category and has

not been able to make the grade inter se other candidates of that category then his locus standi to challenge the selection and appointment of

candidates belonging to other categories cannot be entertained. It is appropriate to mention that the appellant could not be short listed because he

had secured 32.1 points whereas the last short listed candidate under Scheduled Caste category had secured 46.26 points which is far ahead of

the appellant. As a sequel to the above discussion, we do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Writ Court. The appeal does

not merit admission, which is accordingly dismissed.