SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the writ petition, the writ Petitioner contended that he is a graduate with Science and, in addition to that, has undergone one year's course, and, accordingly, is the only person eligible for being promoted to the post of Sanitation Officer but instead of promoting him, the Respondent-Municipality has promoted one Purshotam Kumar and another Darshan Kumar, who did not have the said qualification. It was not disputed before the Writ Court that Purshotam Kumar and Darshan Kumar were senior to the Petitioner in the feeder post. While dismissing the writ petition, the Court took into account Annexure to the Recruitment Rules where under Column 5 minimum qualification for direct recruitment has been prescribed and under Column 6 method of recruitment has been prescribed. Under Column 5, i.e., while prescribing minimum qualification for direct recruitment, graduate with Science and one year's course under the State Medical Faculty or equivalent qualification recognised by the Government has been prescribed; whereas under Column 6, i.e., method of recruitment, selection from Class III Category (A) has been prescribed. It has not been prescribed that the post of Sanitation Officer can be filled in by direct recruitment. The method of recruitment in no uncertain terms makes it clear that post of Sanitation Officer can be supplied only by an inservice employee working in Class III Category (A) and in order to supply such vacancy, he must go through the selection process. In such circumstances, it may be contended, as has been contended by the writ Petitioner-Appellant that persons belonging to Class III Category (A) having qualification as prescribed for direct recruitment are only entitled to be considered for selection. At the same time, while qualification has been prescribed for direct recruitment only and no qualification has been prescribed for inservice persons to be selected, it can also be contended that qualification prescribed for direct recruitees may not be the criteria for selecting inservice candidate belonging to Class III Category (A).

(2.) We personally feel that this confusion requires to be removed. However in the instant case, selection having been made from Class III Category (A) without insisting that the candidates should have qualification as prescribed for direct recruitees, it cannot be said that the stand taken by the Respondents while making such selection was absolutely not permissible and hence not interferable by a Judicial Review Court.

(3.) In the circumstances, there is no scope of interference with the conclusion reached in the judgment and order under appeal.