M A JAUHARI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition arises in the following circumstances:

(2.) THE petitioner was working as a Technical Asstt. along with respondents 3 to 29 after passing his Bachelor of Engineering Examination. The petitioner claims to have a brilliant academic career inasmuch as he passed his Hr. Secondary Examination from the Jammu and Kashmir University in the first division in 1962. Thereafter he was admitted to the Regional Engineering College where he was awarded a Scholarship during the entire period of his studentship. He then passed his BE examination in the year 1967 in the first Division getting -first position amongst students from the Kashmir Province and second position amongst students in the State. According to the petitioner he secured an aggregate of 68.8 percent marks in this examination. Soon after passing his BE examination the petitioner was appointed as a Technical Asstt. in the Roads and Buildings Division Baramulla. On 14th August 1967 consequent upon 15 vacancies of Apprentice Asstt. Engineers having occurred under the Government, the Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as the PSC) respondent, 2(a) was approached by the Government, respondent 1, to select candidates in order to fill up these vacancies. As a result of this requisition, an advertisement was issued by the PSC on 7 -10 -67 and another notification on 12 -11 -67. 145 candidates applied for the jobs of Apprentice Asstt. Engineers to the PSC. On 23 -4 -68, however, the first respondent requested the PSC to select 30 candidates instead of 15, because the number of vacancies had since then increased. The petitioner submitted his application for being recommended for appointment as Apprentice Asstt. Engineer. The PSC held a written test of all the candidates on 5 -4 -68, but as some of the candidates from Srinagar could not appear in that written test, another written test was held on 6 -7 -68 in which option was given to the previous candidates also to appear. 136 candidates took the written test out of whom 123 qualified for interview. Thereafter the second respondent held an interview of the candidates from 19 -2 -25 and 28th August, 1968. The petitioner was interviewed on 20th August. On 29th October, 1968 the Commission recommended 32 persons to be appointed as Apprentice Asstt. Engineers. Although the Government had asked the second respondent to send a list of only 30 candidates, the Commission sent the names of two additional candidates, because in their opinion these two candidates appeared to be of exceptional merit and ability. By the time the recommendation was made to the Government two more vacancies occurred and the Government accepted the recommendation of the PSC in toto and appointed 32 candidates as Apprentice Asstt. Engineers. The petitioner, however, was not recommended by the PSC and was therefore not appointed by the Government. The petitioner thus seeks to challenge the order of the Government, which is based on the recommendation of the PSC on various grounds.

(3.) IN the first place, it was urged by the petitioner that the selection of the candidates interviewed was not objective in character but was clearly violative of the concept of equality contained in Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that respondent 2 had acted with malice and deliberately denigrated the petitioner by overlooking his superior merit. Thirdly it was contended that the Government did not lay down any guidelines or criteria for selection of the candidates by the PSC and, therefore, any selection made by the Commission was invalid. Lastly it was submitted that interview as the sole method of selection was not an objective test at all because the petitioners superior merit was comparatively over -looked and persons with much inferior academic merit were preferred to the petitioner without any good and sufficient reason. It was also submitted that the selection of the respondents was bad because no understandable method was adopted by the PSC in selecting the candidates.