news details |
|
|
| DB directs CS to issue orders for appointment of writ petitioner as Junior Assistant under ‘OSC category | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Jan 1: A Division Bench of J&K High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajnesh Oswal while disposing of a appeal by providing that the whole matter with regard to selection and appointment of the writ petitioner as Junior Assistant under ‘OSC category shall be placed before the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of J&K, who shall issue appropriate orders for appointment of the writ petitioner as Junior Assistant under ‘OSC category available in any of the departments of Union Territory Viz. Tourism, Finance, Health, PWD, Planning and Development, Higher Education, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative.
The DB further said that in case no post of Junior Assistant under ‘OSC category is available to accommodate the writ petitioner, the Chief Secretary shall utilize any other available post of Junior Assistant in any of the aforesaid departments or some other department so as to meet out justice to the writ petitioner.
The appointment of the writ petitioner shall date back to the date when the candidates selected pursuant to Advertisement Notice No.02 of 2011 were selected and appointed by the Government/department(s) concerned. The writ petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits minus the monetary benefits.
Division Bench observed that there is no dispute with regard to the proposition that placing of a candidate in the select list does not confer upon him a right to be appointed and the appointment can be denied to such selected candidates for good reasons.
Non availability of vacancy can be a good reason to deny appointment to the writ petitioner in the instant case but the facts of this case are entirely different.
The writ petitioner had not applied for selection to the post of Junior Assistant in the Department of Finance only.
He had applied for all the 93 vacancies which were available in different departments and had been clubbed together by the respondent Board for making selection.
The writ petitioner was not even aware about the number of vacancies and their break-up contained in the requisitions received by the Service Selection Board from different departments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
