news details |
|
|
| Selection of nine direct sessions judges challenged | | Selection subject to outcome of petition: HC | |
Jammu, Dec 18 (JNF): In a petition filed by one Rakesh Kumar Chargotra challenging the selection of Nine Advocates as directed District/Sessions Judges on various grounds, Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir of J&K High Court Jammu Wing issued notice returnable within two weeks and ordered that in the meantime subject to objection of other side, selection of nine direct Sessions Judges shall remain subject to outcome of the petition.
In the petition in which Sr. Adv Ved Raj Wazir assisted Adv Gourav Sarngal appearing for the petitioner challenging the selection process in terms of notification issued on August 1, 2011 for selection of candidates to the posts in the cadre of District Judges by direct recruitment, on the ground that the official respondents have not followed the mandate of the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2009 (for short 'Rules of 2009'), and without determining the eligibility criteria of the candidates in so far as it relates to the requirement of all the candidates being proficient in reading and writing the Urdu language which is one of the mandatory requirements as per the Rules supra.
Moreso, the petitioner by way of writ of certiorari has prayed that select list issued by respondent No. 2 vide Notification No. 81174-76 dated 13.08.2012 be quashed, whereby the respondents 3 to 11 have been selected for Higher Judicial Services by Direct Recruitment/ Advocates quota.
It is submitted that the petitioner faired well in the written test but did not figure in the list of the candidates called for the interview, which constrained him to lay a motion in terms of provisions of the Right to Information Act, seeking photocopies of the answer scripts as also of the selected candidates, but was not given the photocopies of the answer scripts of the selected candidates and was informed that he could be permitted to peruse the same. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner perused his answer scripts and found that most of the answers written seem to have not been evaluated and certain answers have been given less marks or no mark at all.
It is also averred in the writ petition at hand that contrary to the established principles of evaluating the mark sheets, candidates were awarded marks for the best of the nine questions attempted by them inspite of the fact that only nine questions were to be attempted.
It is also contended that the marks were wrongly awarded and the candidates have been given marks to the alternative questions as well and those have been calculated/ evaluated twice, when fact of the matter is that they have to be evaluated only once. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
