CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assistant Commissioner Development District Programme Coordinator (MGNREGA), Udhampur, vide Advertisement Notice No. ACDU/Estt/2018/24008 dated 18.01.2018 advertised two posts of Technical Assistant (JE). The qualification prescribed was B. Tech in Civil engineering and three years diploma in Civil Engineering (From any University/Engineering College/Polytechnic College duly recognized by ACITE) in Blocks Tikri and Moungri in District Udhampur. Advertisement. Petitioner possessing the requisite qualification, applied for the post of JE pursuant to the said Advertisement Notice.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that on 23.05.2018, the Ex-Sarpanch of Panchayat Halqa, Tikri informed the father of the petitioner on telephone that the interview for the post of Technical Assistant (JE) has been conducted by respondent No. 4, and also asked him, why the petitioner did not appear for the interview. This information was conveyed to the petitioner through his father, therefore, on 24.05.2018 petitioner approached the office of respondent No. 4, and was informed that the interview for the said post was conducted on 23.05.2018. Thus, according to the petitioner, only respondent No. 5 was called for interview as he is the son of the Block Development Officer, Pancheri. It is also his assertion that two other candidates, namely Parvesh Sharma and Rohit Sharma, who also had no knowledge or information about the date of interview, received information telephonically from their friends, and since they immediately approached the office of respondent No. 4, therefore, they too were interviewed. It is submitted that the date of interview was not communicated deliberately to all the candidates to facilitate the selection of respondent No. 5.

(3.) It is submitted that in Clause No. 14 of the application form, his telephone number was provided yet he was not informed about the interview date telephonically and no information of the date of interview was uploaded on the website, thus, precluding him from participating in the same. It is alleged that the interviews were held secretly without issuing any interview call and only with ulterior motive to appoint respondent No. 5 and exclude all other candidates from participation in the competition.