news details |
|
|
| HC upholds selection of police SIs | | | early times report
Jammu, May 3: The state high court today dismissed 21 petitions challenging the selection of police Sub-inspectors vide advertisement notices issued on dated January 29, 2009 on various grounds including that the posts of Sub-Inspectors available in the four wings of J&K Police viz Executive, Armed, Auxiliary & Police Telecommunication was not disclosed in the advertisement notice of year 2009.
In the approved for reporting judgment Justice JP Singh after hearing battery of lawyers observed that although, the case set up by the petitioners in their respective Writ Petitions is that the Second Endurance Test was maneuvered by the respondents to adjust their blue eyed persons but there does not appear any substance therein when the issue is considered in the light of the facts disclosed by the respondents which reveal that out of 59 candidates, who were permitted to participate in the Second Endurance Test, only 41 could clear it and out of even these 41, only 15 could qualify the Written Test for participation in the Interview.
No candidate out of these 15 would qualify for selection against the Open Merit Category and even those who competed against the Reserved Categories for the Posts of Sub-Inspector (Executive) and Sub-Inspector (Armed), did not affect in any way the merit of the petitioners.
Even if the 15 candidates, who appeared in the Second Endurance Test had not participated in the Written Test for their omission to appear in the Ist Endurance Test, the petitioners were not to be short-listed for Interview because of their adjudged lower merit in the Written Test as it so appears from the information supplied by the State-respondents.
Considering in the background of the petitioners' merit in the Written Test and the cut-off marks of the last selected candidate in all categories, the Second Endurance Test held by the respondents is not found to have affected in any manner whatsoever, the petitioners' claim to selection for the posts of Sub-Inspectors on the basis of their merit.
Court further observed that even otherwise, there is no allegation against the Director General in directing the holding of the Second Endurance Test for any specific malafide reason or ulterior purpose and in any case, in view of the lower merit of the petitioners in the Written Test, the holding of the Second Endurance Test, has not in any way affected the petitioners' consideration to Selection, in that, even if the persons who had participated in the Written Test after the Second Endurance Test, had not so participated, the petitioners would not have qualified for Interview.
The non-disclosure of the vacancy position at the time of issuance of Advertisement Notices inviting Applications has been properly explained by the respondents.
Even otherwise, the petitioners having been permitted to participate in the Written Test after they were short-listed therefore, cannot have any grievance against the non-disclosure of the vacancy position at the time of issuance of the Advertisement Notices.
With these observations Court dismissed all the 21 writ petitions questioning the selection process are found without merit. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
