AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE notification dated 31.3.1981 issued by respondent No.3; applications were invited from the persons desirous of sitting in the combined competitive examination to be held for the appointment to the posts in various services specified therein. The persons applying were to indicate option/ preference for different services mentioned in the notification. It is submitted that the petitioner opted for the posts of Under Secretary, Tehsildar, B.D.O.,Dy,S,P,, Asstt Registrar of Co -operative and Asstt.R T.O, but never opted for Accounts service. The petitioner claims to have been declared qualified in the said competitive examinations vide notification of respondent No.3 dated 9.2.1984. In pursuance to the recommendation of respondent No 3, appointment of candidates specified in Annexure -P2 to the posts in various services, including the petitioner who figures at S.No 24 was ordered by respondent No.2, vide Govt. order No 333 -GD of 1984 dated 21 2.1 984. The petitioner was appointed as Accounts Officer in the J8K Accounts (Gazetted) Service allegedly contrary to the options given by him It is submitted that the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.1 on 26.2.1984 for his appointment in general services other than the accounts service on the ground that he had never opted for the accounts service as he did not have aptitude for the accounts or studied accounts/ mathematic during his academic career. The representation is stated to be kept pending considerably for a long period without any action. It is alleged that respondent No.1 considered many other representations and changed their service/posts and cadres as per their option and choices but the prayer of the petitioner was never accepted It is submitted that in the year 1987, two accounts officers who were his batchmates and were junior to him, filed writ petition No 819 87 in this court for the redressal of their grievances and as the prayer of the petitioner was not accepted, he preferred this writ petition with the prayer for the issuance of a command to the respondents to change/reallot the service, post and cadre of the petitioner as accounts officer, junior scale, from J&K Accounts (gazetted) Service and further appoint him to any other general gazetted service post and cadre in the equivalent rank and post in any other KAS/combined gazetted service with effect from the initial order of his appointment and confer upon him all service benefits to which he is entitled by keeping intact his inter se seniority. It is submitted that Shakeel Ahmed Beg and Vijay Singh Samyal were initially appointed as Accounts Officers and were junior to him, vide Govt. Order No.627 -GD of 1984 dated 5.41984 have been appointed as Dy. S.P. Similarly the services of S/Shri Joginder Paul Singh, Farooq Akhtar Naseer Ahmed, Brij Mohan Sharma, Bhupinder Singh Manocha, Smt Chander Gupta and Miss Dev Lata, have been changed. It is submitted that the respondents have discriminated in not changing the service of the petitioner despite his requests and representations made.

(2.) IN the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1&2 the issuance of the notification for the competitive examination is admitted. It is submitted that after the receipt of the list of successful candidates, the question of allotment of selected candidates to various services came up for consideration and upon examination it was found that there was a large divergence between the preference made by the candidates and the availability of vacancies in various services Moreover, it was also considered feasible not to go by the preference of the candidates as that would have resulted in candidates possessing higher merit going to one particular service and candidates with lower merit going to any other service besides entailing rejection of a number of candidates on account of non -availability of the vacancies in various services. The allotment to different services of selected candidates, was made keeping in view their suitability, merit and the availability of vacancies in those services, All the selected candidates, after being appointed in different services, were required to under go a general training with a view to exposing them to working of various department and to acquaint them with different laws. The course was devised on the basis of the recommendations of a committee headed by the Financial Commissioner The representation of the petitioner dated 26.2.1984 was duly considered and rejected informing the petitioner of the decision vide letter dated 1 -1 -1988 (Annexure R2) It is admitted that in some cases the allotment of the department was changed on account of certain administrative difficulties experienced. By not acceding to the request of the petitioner in the matter of change in respect of allotment of the department/service,on legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed. It is submitted that the petitioner has no right to claim for a particular posting/appointment particularly when the grade, rate of increments etc, of all such posts are the same,

(3.) IN his rejoinder -affidavit the petitioner has reiterated what he has already stated in the writ petition and denied the averments of facts made in the counter -affidavit.