news details |
|
|
| Candidate in waitlist can’t jump merit queue for appointment: High Court | | From The Court | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 16: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has modified a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) judgment concerning the selection of Naib Tehsildars, holding that a candidate placed fourth on the waiting list cannot be directly appointed without first considering the claims of three higher-ranked candidates.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Rahul Bharti, while disposing of two writ petitions filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the J&K Services Selection Board (JKSSB) and two affected appointees, directed the authorities to operate the waiting list strictly in accordance with merit and complete the exercise within three months.
The controversy arose from the recruitment of Naib Tehsildars initiated through advertisement notifications issued in 2002, 2005 and 2008. Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Jamwal, who had applied under the Open Merit category pursuant to the 2002 advertisement, challenged his placement in the waiting list and the adjustment of two candidates with disabilities against Open Merit vacancies.
The petitioner had secured 94.33 marks but was placed at serial number seven on the waiting list. He contended that the selection authorities had incorrectly applied the reservation policy and the criteria governing candidates securing identical marks.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, in its judgment dated November 23, 2021, had accepted his claim, directed the rearrangement of the waiting list and ordered his appointment as Naib Tehsildar despite the age bar arising from prolonged litigation.
The Tribunal had also quashed the selection and appointment of Om Raj Sombria and Virender Kumar while directing the adjustment of Jahangir Hussain and Manzoor Ahmed Mir, candidates belonging to the disability category, against their respective reserved categories.
Aggrieved by the Tribunal's judgment, the JKSSB and the UT administration approached the High Court. Om Raj Sombria and Virender Kumar also filed a separate petition challenging the cancellation of their appointments.
Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma, assisted by Advocate Jagmeet Kour, appeared in one petition, while Advocates Rahul Raina and Sheikh Najeeb represented the petitioners in the connected matter. Senior Advocate Abhinav Sharma, assisted by Advocates Aditya Manhas and Abhirash Sharma, and Advocate Nitin Bhasin appeared for the respondents.
Examining the controversy, the Division Bench agreed in principle with the Tribunal's findings concerning the adjustment of candidates under the reservation categories and the correction of the waiting list.
However, the Court found a serious flaw in the Tribunal's direction granting appointment to Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Jamwal merely because his position had improved from seventh to fourth.
The Bench observed that three candidates remained ahead of him on the waiting list and that the Tribunal had not recorded any finding establishing that their claims had already been exhausted.
The Court held that the selection authorities were required to operate the waiting list according to merit and could consider Jamwal for appointment only if the three higher-ranked candidates were unavailable or declined the opportunity.
Accordingly, the Division Bench modified the Tribunal's directions and ordered the JKSSB and the Revenue Department to consider Jamwal against one of the two additional Open Merit vacancies, subject to the proper operation of the waiting list.
The Court further directed that, if Jamwal becomes entitled to appointment and vacancies relating to the 2002 recruitment are unavailable, the authorities shall accommodate him against any vacant Naib Tehsildar post from subsequent recruitment years.
Significantly, the High Court directed that the selection and appointment of Om Raj Sombria and Virender Kumar shall not be disturbed.
The Bench also provided for notional benefits as envisaged by the Tribunal's judgment in the event of Jamwal's appointment.
The Court directed the JKSSB and the UT administration to complete the necessary exercise within three months from the date of the judgment, disposing of both writ petitions accordingly. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
