news details |
|
|
| HC hammers PSC | | Commission asked not to act beyond its jurisdiction, adhere to Reservation Rules | |
Jammu, November, 11
Justice Nirmal Singh of J&K High Court Jammu wing has decided a law point involved in the writ petition filed by a doctor who was recommended against the post meant for SC Category, has raised point of law whether a candidate from the Open/General Category can be selected and recommended by the Commission against the post meant for reserved category without getting DE-Reserved.
This law point has been raised in a writ petition filed by Dr. Sanjeev Puri through Advocate Ashok Parihar that the JKPSC invited applications for five posts of B-Grade Specialist in Ophthalmology in the Health & Family Welfare Department with one post each reserved for RBA, SC and ST category. Twelve candidates appeared and on the basis of all over performance and academic qualification experience and other relevant factors Dr. Sunil Ji Mattoo and Dr. Sajjad Hamid Fazli were found suitable for appointment in open category, in the ST category Dr. Tsering Angchuk was selected, no candidate was found available in RBA category while SC. Dr. Sanjeev Puri petitioner and Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma were recommended by the Commission against the post reserved for RBA and SC categories. On the recommendation of the Commission, Secretary to Government Health & Medical Education Department issued appointment orders of Dr. Sunil Ji Matoo, Dr. Sajjad Hamid Fazli and Dr.Tsering Angchuk. The Department of Health and Family Welfare and Medical Education also wrote a letter to GAD for giving approval to the appointment of petitioner against the reserved category post. The GAD upheld the recommendation of the Commission and allowed the Health Department to issue the appointment orders in favour of the selected candidates including the petitioner. The Commission in its letter dated January 21, 2003 after considering the proposal of Health Family Welfare and Medical Education Department did not extend the validity of the selection list, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Justice Nirmal Singh after hearing Advocate Ashok Parihar appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Shaista Hakim Dy AG for the Medical Dept whereas Sr. Advocate DC Raina along with Advocate FA Natnoo appearing for the PSC, observed that the point which has to be considered in this petition is whether the Commission has erroneously declined to extend the life of the select list. The Commission has formulated the J&K PSC Rules 1980, and under the Rule 57, the recommendations shall be valid for a period of one year from the date they are communicated to the Government. The validity period of one year can, however, be extended for a further period of six months on specific request, if the request for such extension is made before the expiry of validity of panel. A perusal of Rule 57 shows that the life of panel of candidates selected by the Commission will be one year from the date of communication send by the Commission to the Government. In the present case the respondent department had not made any such request within stipulated period of one year and the Commission in violation of the statutory rules recommended the name of the petitioner. The Commission should recommend the name of the candidates selected as per the advertisement, requisition made by the indenting department and strictly in accordance with the rules. If the commission will recommend the names beyond its jurisdiction it will generate litigation as it has been done in this case. With these observations the court dismissed the writ petition along with other writ petitions, as there is no merit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
