JAMEEL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to have responded to the Advertisement Notice No. 04 of 2004 dated 23.09.2004, whereby amongst the other posts J&K Service Selection Board through its Secretary-respondent No. 3 herein, invited applications for 170 posts of Junior Engineers Electrical Grade-II in the Open Merit category. The respondent No. 3 slept over the matter for next three years and conducted interview of the aspirants for the advertised posts only in April 2007. The petitioner appeared in interview on 27th April 2007. The select list of candidates for the advertised posts was published in a local daily on 05.07.2007. However, the petitioner did not find place in the select list. The respondents No. 1, acting on the select list issued appointment order in favour of the selected candidates vide Government order No. 175-PDD of 2007 dated 10.07.2007.

(2.) The petitioner aggrieved of the select list dated 05.07.2007 and the Government order No. 175-PDD of 2007 dated 10.07.2007 has come up with the present writ petition seeking quashment of select list and appointment order.

(3.) The petitioner assails the mode and mechanism of the selection process on the ground that the methodology adopted and followed is in conflict with law laid down in Dinesh Kumar and others v. Moti Lal Nehru. Medical College, 1985 3 SCC 22. The respondent No. 3, it is pleaded earmarked 70 marks/points, for the academic qualification 20 points for interview and 10 points for higher education (Post Graduation). The petitioner's case is that the respondent No. 3 having regard to fact that the aspirants for the advertised vacancies were Engineer Graduates from different Engineering Colleges of the Country as also of some other countries, ought not to have given any weightage to the merit obtained by the aspirants in the academic qualification i.e. Bachelor Engineering. It is pointed out that differrent Universities in India and outside observe different parameters for assessing performance of their students and as there is no uniformity in the assessment of the academic merit, 70% weightage given to the merit in academic qualification has tilted scales in favour of the aspirants who could not perform well in their interview or had not higher qualification (Post Graduation) to their credit. The right course for the respondent No. 3, according to the petitioner was to hold a written test of all the candidates and award marks on the basis of performance in such written test. The petitioner, to highlight how the methodology adopted by the respondent No. 3 has worked harshly against the petitioner and similarly placed candidates, has made reference to the case of respondent No. 7 who though obtained only 10.67 points in vivo-voce like the petitioner was nonetheless selected because of higher merit (61.87) points as against 36.92 pointes awarded to the petitioner on the basis of his merit position in B-Tech examination. The selection list and appointment order in question is also impugned on the ground that the interviews were conducted by one of three member of the Committee constituted by the respondent No. 3 in terms of Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules. It is next pleaded that the only member of the Committee has awarded points in an arbitrary manner. To illustrate reference is made to the 19 points out of 20 awarded in favour of respondent No. 9. The petitioner also complains that he has not been awarded points for the higher qualification to his credit. The delay in completing the selection process is the other grounds urged in support of case set up in the petition.