news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses petition seeking selection of JE Civil under SC Category | | |
JAMMU, MAY 11
Justoce JP Singh of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in his judgment and announced by Justice Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain of Jammu & Kashmir High Court, Jammu wing here today, dismissed the petition filed by the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category claiming consideration for selection and appointment as Junior Engineer (civil) in the PWD and vacated the interim stay order.
The petitioners had earlier approached the High Court in a SWP 1800/2004 and during the pendency of this petition, the J&K State Subordinate Services Recruitment Board issued advertisement Notice No 3 dated September 14, 2004 inviting applications for the selection against 256 posts of Junior Engineers, 21 posts against the SC category. The petitioners in view of the issuance of notification withdrew the SWP 1800/2004.
It was during the process of finalization of selection process the petitioners filed present writ petition claiming preference and weightage in selection against the reserved category posts of JE civil, urging that delay on the part of board in holding selection, when the first notification had been issued and expanded the area of competition, which, according to them entitled them to preference and weightage in selection.
Justice JP Singh, after hearing Advocate Sunil Sethi appearing for the petitioners, Sr. Adv UK Jalali, Advocates KS Johal and Shahzad Azeem appearing for the CMPs and Additional Advocate General Mr. SC Gupta appearing for the State respondents and Advocate SK Shukla appearing for SSRB, observed that petitioner’s plea that recruitment to existing SC category vacancies was available only to those candidates who had become eligible in the year when the vacancies become so available and the recruitment board could not club all the vacancies which had arisen in the subsequent years with the existing vacancies and thereafter go in for selection, providing chance of competition to all those candidates who were eligible at the time of issuance of the last notification, appearing to be misconceived. This is so because neither the recruitment rules nor the rules framed by the J&K SSRB for selection of candidates envisages such a mode of selection as is projected on behalf of the petitioners. The reservations rules too contemplate any such restriction still less preference in selection. In the absence of any statutory rules or for that matter any administrative instruction or guidelines on the subject, no restriction on the power and authority of an employer to extend the area of competition by clubbing the vacancies for the purpose of selection and the appointment may be justified. It is the prerogative of an employer, rather than that of a candidate to prescribe conditions of competition and employment, no candidate desirous of seeking selection and appointment may be conceived to have any right to compel his perspective employer to devise mode of selection and appointment as suggested by him.
In the approved for reporting judgment, Justice JP Singh, after considering the judgments of the Supreme Court further observed that the Court is of the view that principle laid down by the Supreme Court of India cannot be applied to the facts of the present case where no rule or regulation or for that matter any administrative instruction issued in this behalf mandates against clubbing of vacancies or drawing up of the select list every year. That apart, the petitioners having chosen not to question notifications issued in the year 2004, when they first came to the High Court and subsequent notifications issued thereafter in which it had been specifically mentioned that the notifications were being issued in continuation to earlier notifications, and rather consideration after the issuance of notification dated November 29, 2005, stops them to question the selection process and seek preference in selection at this belated stage when the selection process had been completed and the selection list issued during the pendency of the petition. Court does not find any merit in the petition accordingly dismissed it. In view of the dismissal of the petitions, no orders are required to be passed in seven CMPs seeking impleadment and vacation of interim order. These CMPs are accordingly disposed and interim stay issued by this Court and modified is also vacated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
