NITTU SUDAN Vs. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board-respondent No.2 vide Advertisement Notification No.05 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013 invited applications for filling up various posts of Teachers in the School Education Department, which included 157 posts in District Cadre Poonch. The breakup of the posts indicated in the Notification was as under: Open merit : 90 RBA : 31 SC : 13 ST : 15 ALC : 05 OSC : 03 Total : 157

(2.) While the selection process pursuant to the aforesaid Notification was pending and had not proceeded beyond the receipt of application forms, respondent No.2 issued another Notification, i.e., Advertisement Notification No.06 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013 inviting applications inter alia for 231 more posts of Teachers in District Cadre Poonch with the breakup as under:- Open merit : 133 RBA : 46 SC : 18 ST : 23 ALC : 07 OSC : 04 Total : 231

(3.) The petitioner, as he claims, responded to both the Advertisement Notifications and submitted her application forms to respondent No.2 against proper receipts/acknowledgements. The respondent No.2 conducted common selection process for the posts notified vide aforesaid two Notifications. However, the candidates were separately shortlisted with reference to each Notification. Indisputably, the petitioner was shortlisted only with regard to the first Notification, i.e., Notification No. 05 of 2013 and was not amongst the candidates shortlisted in reference to Advertisement Notification No.06 of 2013. The petitioner could not make grade because of her lower merit vis- vis the candidate last selected in the selection process carried out pursuant to the Advertisement Notification No.05 of 2013. The petitioner, as she claims, was placed in the waiting list of the open merit category candidate at S.No.5 against the Notification No.05 of 2013. The petitioner was indicated to have obtained total selection merit of 59.5169 points, which included the points in the written test, viva voce and academic merit. The petitioner after comparing her merit indicated in the waiting list (open merit) under the Advertisement Notification No.05 of 2013 found that the petitioner because of her merit in the written/screening test was entitled to be shortlisted even with reference to Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2013, but, had not been so shortlisted by the respondents arbitrarily. The petitioner made representation to the respondentNo.2 to look into the matter. The representation was made on 09.07.2014 and when no decision on the representation was taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed the instant petition.