NASEER AHMAD MIR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent J&K Service Selection Board (for short SSB) issued advertisement notice No.4 of 2007daled 191h Nov. 2007, whereby posts of Junior Engineers (Electric) Grade II were advertised. Applications were invited from the eligible candidates to seek consideration for being selected/appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (Electric) Grade II. Respondent No.4 responded to said notification and sought consideration for being selected/appointed against the aforementioned post under RBA category. One more advertisement notice was issued on 14th July 2008. The process of selection initiated by SSB resulted in issuance of provisional selection list which was published in one of the daily news paper in its edition dated 23rd June 2009. The respondent No.4 figured at serial No. 83 of the said provisional selection list as RBA category candidate. In terms of the said provisional selection list, respondent No.4 had secured 58.40 marks while as appellant had secured 58.38 marks. Being aggrieved of the said provisional selection list SWP No. 1095/2009 was filed by few non selected candidates in the Jammu Wing of this court in which the entire provisional selection list was called in question. Respondent No.4 figured at serial No. 71 in the array of respondents. Ld single Judge on 6th July 2009 directed that subject to objections and till further orders one post each be reserved for petitioner(s) therein in RBA and S.T category. The SSB, accordingly, reserved one post in RBA category and consequently no recommendation was made to the competent authority for making appointment against the said post. One Akash Deep Singh S/o Kuldeep Singh Katoch who was selected under RBA category did not join the services. The respondent No. 4 being next in merit represented to the authorities for recommending his name to the appointing authority so as to enable the appointing authority to issue appointment order in his favour. When the request did not evoke any response, respondent No.4 filed SWP No. 1569/2009 praying therein that SSB be directed to forward his name to respondent No.1 so as to enable respondent No.1 to issue appropriate order in his favour against the post which became available due to non joining of Sh. Akash Deep Singh. It was further prayed that respondents be directed not to issue the appointment order in favour of the appellant. No reply was filed by respondents in the writ petition which was disposed of by the court vide order dated 17th Nov. 2009. The order is reproduced as under:

(2.) The respondent No.1 issued government order No. 251-PDD of 2009 dated 3rd Dec. 2009, vide which, besides other candidates, appellant was ordered to be appointed as Jr. Engineer (Electric) Grade II under RBA category. Petitioner feeling aggrieved of the order, challenged the same by filing writ petition which was registered as SWP No. 1885/09. The SSB as also the appellant filed reply affida- vit/objections. The SSB in its reply affidavit stated that respondent No.1 had secured 58.40 points under RBA category and appellant had secured 58.38 points under the said category. It was also admitted by the SSB that last cut of point under RBA category remained 58.40 points.

(3.) In the objections, the appellant pleaded that respondent No.4 cannot seek consideration for being selected/appointed on the post of Jr. Engineer (Electric) Grade II under RBA category in as much as, in terms of order dated 17th Nov. 2009 passed in SWP No. 1569/09 he is to be given consideration in open merit category. It was further pleaded that appellant was appointed because of the merit he has secured. The writ petition was taken up for final disposal with the consent of the Ld counsel for parties which included appellant as well. By judgment dated 23rd Nov. 2010 the appointment of the appellant on the post ordered vide order No. 251-PDD of 2009 dated 3rd Dec. 2009 was quashed and the appointing authority was directed to offer appointment to respondent No. 4 based upon recommendation made by the SSB. It was also provided that effect of the appointment be given notionally only for the purpose of seniority. The appellant who had worked for some time on the post of Jr. Engineer was held entitled to receive salary for the period for which he has actually worked. It is this judgment which is called in question in this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).