BILAL AHMAD SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition on consideration is admitted to hearing and on consensus taken up for disposal at its threshold.

(2.) Chief Conservator of Forests (CAMPA), respondent No. 3 herein, on 25.4.2011 issued an advertisement notice notifying that J&K Forest Department was in need of qualified manpower for preparation of Working Plans and Demarcation of Forests. The persons having diploma in Forestry from any recognized Rangers College (DDR) were asked to appear in person before the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kashmir and Jammu regions with their Biodata for assessment of their aptitude for the Working Plan preparation for respective regions. The aspirants were also given the option to appear with their bio-data in the office of Chief Conservator of Forests (CAMP A). The engagement as per the advertisement notice was required for 'specialized technical job'. It was further notified that the engagement would be need-based and in the project mode. There was also a word of caution for all those interested in the job as they were informed that the Working Plan preparation and Demarcation duties would require extensive touring in remote areas and in-depth knowledge of the subject.

(3.) The petitioners claim to have to their credit Bachelor's and Master's degree in Forestry and are aggrieved that though well equipped to man the positions advertised, they have been excluded from the zone of consideration. The advertisement notice is impugned on the grounds that it does not indicate the number of posts, the particulars of the posts to be filled up so that all eligible for the advertised posts take an informed decision regarding participation in the selection process. The notice is labelled as cryptic, lacking in essential details and to have been issued in flagrant violation of the rules. It is alleged that the advertisement notice has been intentionally left cryptic and ambiguous because of extraneous considerations and issued in malicious exercise of executive power. It is pleaded that the impugned advertisement notice infringes petitioners' right to consideration for available advertised posts.