news details |
|
|
| High Court dismisses petitions challenging selection of NT | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Mar 11: Justice Sanjeev Kumar of J&K High Court Jammu Wing dismisses bunch of petitions challenging result of the examination conducted by the J&K Services Selection Board (for testing the “working knowledge of Urdu’ published vide notice No SSB/Secy/Sel/2019/4563-66 dated 04.09.2019 insofar as it declares the petitioners ‘disqualified’ and also seeking quashment of the notice issued by SSB vide its No SSB/Sel/Secy/2017/11832-46 dated 18.11.2017, whereby written examination for testing ‘working knowledge of Urdu’ has been prescribed as qualifying examination for Naib Tehsildar (NT).
Justice Sanjeev Kumar while dismissing the petitions after hearing battery of lawyers whereas Sr AAG SS Nanda with AAG Amit Gupta for the respondents observed that when the case of the petitioners is viewed in light of the legal position adumbrated herein, this Court does not find it a case falling in the exceptions illustrated above. Although, there is half-hearted challenge thrown to the statutory Recruitment Rules of 2009, but no material has been placed on record to substantiate it. The argument of Gagan Basotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.3824/2019 that, with the process of digitization of the revenue record having been set in motion in the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, knowledge of Urdu by a Naib Tehsildar may not be essential requirement anymore and, therefore, the Rules providing for “knowledge of Urdu” as one of the essential qualification is totally illegal, arbitrary and irrational and, therefore, offends Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, is wholly without any substance. There is nothing on record to indicate that all the revenue records are now being maintained in a language other than Urdu. The process of selection in the instant case was initiated way back in the year 2015, when admittedly, given the nature of job required to be performed by revenue officers particularly Patwaris and Naib Tehsildar, ‘working knowledge of Urdu’ is indispensable. It is not the case of any of the petitioner that the respondents in the conduct of written examination of Urdu have violated any statutory rules or have acted in derogation thereof. There is no allegation by the petitioners that the Urdu test has been conducted by the respondent-Board in derogation to the statutory rules.
High Court further observed that it is also not the case pleaded by any of the petitioners that the written test of Urdu conducted by SSB was unfair or that there were instances of facilitating copying in the examination or that the examination was marred by any bungling. Once, it is held that case of the petitioners does not fall in any of the exceptions carved out to the Rules of estoppel, the petitioners cannot be said to have locus to assail the mode, manner and methodology of the Urdu test conducted by the SSB to test the ‘working knowledge of Urdu’.
Equally, I am not impressed with the argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the statutory rules provide for ‘knowledge of Urdu’, whereas the examination was aimed at testing the ‘working knowledge of Urdu’, Justice Sanjeev observed.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that “Knowledge of Urdu” is a term more comprehensive and wider in its amplitude than the term “working knowledge of Urdu”. The working knowledge of Urdu would literally mean such knowledge of Urdu as is sufficient to perform the duties of office i.e. Naib Tehsildar in the instant case, whereas “knowledge of Urdu” would be wide enough to cover even the extensive and thorough knowledge of Urdu. By restricting the test to “working knowledge of Urdu”, the respondent-Board, in my opinion, have not acted in derogation to the statutory rules. Equally, untenable and flimsy is the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the selection process particularly with regard to holding of Urdu test violates the judgment of the Writ Court and, therefore, unsustainable in law. Having gone through the judgment of this Court in SWP No.2657/2015 carefully, it is found that the learned Single Bench took objection to the manner in which descriptive test in Urdu for 30 marks was provided by the respondent-Board. Learned Single Bench, after evaluating the rival contentions, concluded that such prescription was bad. The respondents did not pursue the earlier notification issued in the year 2015 and issued a fresh notification on 18.11.2017 by clearly providing that the examination of Urdu to be conducted by the SSB was only of qualifying nature and it would have two sections, reading and writing. It is not understandable as to how the ‘working knowledge of Urdu’ of a candidate can be tested without holding reading and writing test. How the knowledge of Urdu is to be tested and what should be the standard of paper is best left to the domain of the experts and the recruiting agency. It is none of the business of the Court to hold that in a particular examination, a particular standard should have been maintained. Even if, the Court is of the opinion that a different examination could have been provided to test the knowledge of Urdu, yet it would be loath to substitute its opinion with that of experts and the recruiting agency.
With these observations Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that in nutshell, I do not find any unfairness and arbitrariness in the conduct of Urdu test possibly and it may be a fact that mode, manner and methodology as also the standard adopted by the respondent-Board in conducting the written Urdu test might have resulted into advantage in favour of such candidates, who had read Urdu as a regular student in comparison to those, who may have acquired the knowledge of Urdu subsequently, may be, while making preparation for the post in question, but that alone cannot be a ground to hold the selection bad. With these observations, High Court dismissed the petitions. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
