news details |
|
|
| High Court sets aside teacher appointment order | | Says no shortlisting, no Interview, no job | |  Early Times Report
Jammu, Mar 5: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has allowed the State’s Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the Single Bench order directing appointment of Nasreen Shamus as a Teacher in District Kupwara, holding that no court can order appointment of a candidate who was neither shortlisted nor interviewed for the post.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem passed the order in LPA No. 35/2024 in SWP No. 1264/2006, while hearing the appeal filed by the State through the Education Department. The State was represented by Mr H. Aman Ali, Dy AG, whereas the respondent was represented by Mr Pervaiz Lone, Advocate.
The dispute arose from Advertisement Notification No. 10 of 2005 dated 29.12.2005 issued by the then J&K Services Selection Recruitment Board (SSRB) for recruitment of Teachers, including 66 posts in District Kupwara. The interviews of shortlisted candidates were conducted in September 2006, while certain categories were interviewed in October 2006. The respondent did not figure in the shortlist and, consequently, was not called for interview, after which she approached the High Court in 2006 seeking a direction for her interview.
During the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 25.09.2006 permitting her to appear in interview “at her own risk and responsibility” subject to the condition that the interview process was still in progress; however, the Board later stated that the interim direction was neither communicated to it nor was the order produced before it in time, and therefore her interview could not be conducted. The writ petition was dismissed in default in 2007, later restored in 2009, and ultimately allowed by the Single Bench on 02.03.2016, directing the Education Department to appoint her as Teacher in Kupwara and even deeming her within age as on the initiation of the selection process.
Challenging this, the State contended that the Single Bench travelled beyond the relief prayed for—since the petitioner had only sought an interview—and that the Education Department, being the indenting department, could issue appointment orders only on SSRB recommendations. It was argued that in the absence of shortlisting, interview and recommendation, the direction to appoint was legally unsustainable. The State also pointed out that the disability certificate relied upon did not specify the percentage of disability required for consideration under the handicapped category and that the matter involved disputed questions of fact.
The Division Bench noted that the advertisement itself contained a clear shortlisting clause under the “Procedure for Selection,” stating that mere possession of prescribed qualifications does not entitle a candidate to interview and that the Board would ordinarily restrict candidates to five times the number of vacancies after preliminary screening. Rejecting the respondent’s core plea that shortlisting was not mentioned in the advertisement, the Bench held that the condition was duly incorporated, and the respondent failed to secure the requisite merit to be shortlisted.
Relying on settled law that a candidate who participates in a recruitment process cannot later challenge the methodology after being unsuccessful, the Bench observed that the Single Bench appeared to have proceeded primarily on alleged non-compliance of the interim order and, without examining merit, issued a straight appointment direction—an approach the Division Bench found untenable.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment dated 02.03.2016 was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
