news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses 4 writ petitions challenging selection of 167 JEs | | | early times report
Jammu, Dec 20: Dismissing all the writ petitions challenging the selection of 167 Junior Engineers (Civil), Justice Nirmal Singh of Jammu and Kashmir High Court today vacated the interim order passed on November 10, 2008 and directed respondent authorities to take further appropriate steps on the basis of selection made to 167 posts of JE (civil).
While deciding all the four writ petitions along with contempt petition, Justice Singh, after hearing Advocates Sunil Sethi, M. Arif and Veenu Gupta appearing for the petitioners, Additional Advocate General SC Gupta appearing for the State and Advocates SK Shukla and Rahul Pant appearing for the respondents, observed that in pursuance to advertisement notice 2005 issued by SSB inviting applications for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), the petitioners applied for the same under different categories to which they belong. The total number of vacancies which were advertised was 622. After the completion of the selection process, the respondent board forwarded a select list of 622 candidates vide its letters dated April 13, 2007 and May 11, 2007 along with the select list, a waiting list was also prepared by the respondents. Thereafter vide advertisement notice July 3, 2007, 167 more posts of JE (civil) were advertised, it is this advertisement notification which is being challenged in all the four petitions.
Justice Singh in the approved for reporting judgment referred various judgments of the Apex Court including the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in a case titled Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers Association Vs State of Gujarat & ors, and observed that it has not been pointed out by the petitioners that any of the vacancy which has been advertised by the impugned notification has arisen on account of non-joining of any of the selected candidate in pursuance to the earlier selection in which petitioners had participated and were put in the waiting list. The petitioners have not been able to show any policy decision or instructions which laid down that waiting list is to be operative for a period of one year in each and every case and that the respondent state is bound to first exhaust the said waiting list so prepared by the selecting authority and further said that petitioners 1, 4 and 5 in a petition No 2044/2007 stands already appointed even some of the candidates who had applied in ST category and were selected did not join and the vacancies which became available on account of their non-joining have been offered to the ST category candidates of the waiting list. This is thus specific stand taken by the respondents 4 & 5 in their objections. It has further been specifically pleaded by the said respondents that the petitioners have also participated in the selection process which was held in pursuance to the impugned notification. There is no rebuttal to the aforesaid specific stand taken by the private respondents in view of this some of the petitioners who stand already appointed and others having participated in the impugned selection process, cannot now turn and seek a direction for operation of waiting list which was prepared in pursuance of the earlier selection process, the court ruled. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
