MEHRAJ-UD-DIN DAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner responded to advertisement notices which were issued way back in the year 1985, 1986, 1988 and 1993 and sought consideration for being selected and appointed to the post of Naib Tehsildar, which post was advertised in terms of the aforementioned notifications. The respondent/Board issued a notification in the year 1995 for conducting objective type test for the post of Naib Tehsildar, which test was to be conducted simultaneously at Jammu, Srinagar, Leh and Kargil on 27.08.1995. Petitioner having been found eligible on the terms and conditions of the advertisement notification was also permitted to take the objective type test. The respondent-Board thereafter issued one more notification in the year 1997, wherein and where under, the candidates, who were found eligible on the basis of the objective type test, were called for the oral test/interview. Petitioner did not find his roll number in the said notification and, accordingly, filed a representation seeking rechecking of his paper. Petitioner thereafter filed this petition and prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari seeking quashment of notification dated 23.08.1995 and 16.06.1997. Notice dated 23.08.1995 provided for conducting of objective type test and notification dated 16.06.1997 notified the roll numbers of those candidates who were called for interview on the basis of objective type test conducted by the respondent-Board.

(2.) The grounds of challenge projected in the writ petition primarily are that in the advertisement notification it was specifically mentioned that the selection would be made through competitive test and interview but the competitive test as provided in terms of the Rules was not held and objective type test was held. The time frame fixed for taking the objective type test was different at different places.

(3.) On notice issued in the writ petition respondent No. 3 filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that initially a decision was taken for calling the candidates in the ratio of 1:5 but lateron it was modified and candidates were called for interview in the ratio of 1:10. The petitioner having not made the grade was not accordingly called for the interview. It is also pleaded that after the selection process was undertaken candidates were selected and even appointed on the posts of Naib Tehsildars.