BILAL NAZKI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in the present writ petition relates the interpretation of Rule 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967. The back drop of the case in which this controversy has arisen may first be noticed: -

(2.) A competitive examination, for the recruitment of Munsiffs, under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967, was hold in November, 1976, According to the admitted facts, 98 candidates actually appeared in the written examination conducted by the Public Service Commission. After the result of the examination was received, the Commission decided that such candidates who had obtained 35 -/. marks in aggregate and in each individual paper shall be regarded as having qualified and would be summoned for viva voce. Only 16 candidates were found qualified according to the said minimum standard laid down by the commission. Respondents 3 to 8 were amongst those who had so qualified and along -with the other qualified candidates were called for interview. The number of vacancies of Munsiffs, which were required to be filled at the relevant time was 6. The commission after interviewing 16 candidates, recommended the appointment of respondents 3 to 8 to the posts of Munsiffs. That proposal was approved and assented to by the Governor and the final selection list appointing respondents 3 to 8 accordingly issued. The petitioner was one of the 98 candidates who had appeared in the written examination. He had, however, failed in one of the subjects according to the standards laid down but had obtained more than 35% in the aggregate. He was not called for interview. The petitioner is aggrieved of the exclusion and challenges the selection of respondents 3 to 8 on the ground that though he was eligible to be called for interview and considered for appointment, respondents 1 and 2 failed to consider him and thereby violated the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India rendering the selection of respondents 3 to 8 as void.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Z. A. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Commission had a statutory obligation to call the petitioner for interview under Rule 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 and since he was not called for interview the selection made by the Commission was vitiated. It is urged that Rule 13 (Supra) is mandatory and its non -compliance vitiates the selection.