ASIF HANIEF Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court in granting him the following relief(s):

(2.) The case of the petitioner, as projected by him in his petition, is that an advertisement notice, bearing No. 4-SKIMS MC of 2017 dated 12th of July, 2017, came to be issued by the respondent No.3, whereby and whereunder online applications were invited from amongst the eligible aspirants for making selection/ appointment to various posts, including the post of Medical Record Clerk. It is stated that as per the said advertisement notice, the required qualification for the post of Medical Record Clerk was prescribed as 10+2 with 35 Words Per Minute (WPM) speed in 'Type Writing'. It is further stated that the petitioner, being eligible, applied for the post of Medical Record Clerk under Open Merit category. Thereafter, upon conducting the written test, the official respondents, by notification dated 28th of May, 2018, directed the shortlisted candidates, who appeared in the written test for the post of Medical Record Clerk, to appear in type test on 2nd of June, 2018. In the said notification, too, as stated, it was specifically mentioned that the candidate must have minimum 35 Words Per Minute (WPM)speed in type writing with 90% accuracy on the computer keyboard. Subsequently, upon conducting the interview of the concerned candidates, the official respondents issued order bearing No. 287-SKIMS-MC of 2018 dated 23rd of June, 2018, in terms whereof the private respondent was selected and appointed on the post of Medical Record Clerk under open merit (OM) category. It is this order that has been assailed by the petitioner herein this petition, insofar as it pertains to the selection of private respondent on the post of Medical Record Clerk, on various grounds detailed out in the petition.

(3.) Mr M. M. Dar, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, submits that the impugned selection/ appointment order dated 23rd of June, 2018, insofar as it pertains to the respondent No.6, is unsustainable in law as the same has been made while considering an ineligible candidate which cannot be done at any cost. It is submitted that the selection of the respondent No.6 is contrary to the basic notification, wherein it is specifically provided that the candidate should have 10+2 qualification with 35 Words Per Minute (WPM) speed in type writing, but the respondent No.6 is having only 34 Words Per Minute (WPM) Net speed in type writing, thereby rendering him ineligible for selection/ appointment against the post in question. It is contended that although the petitioner is lower in merit than the respondent No.6 by 1.5 marks, but since the private respondent is ineligible and, thus, cannot be considered at all, coupled with the factum of the next in the order of merit candidate having already been appointed in some other Government Department, as such, the petitioner, who falls next in the order of merit after the aforesaid two candidates, deserves to be considered for selection against the post in question.