MOHD. ALTAF BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to advertisement notice No. PS/Secy/HME/01/2007 dated 4lh of October, 2007, issued by Respondent No. 2, inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement on contractual basis against different posts mentioned therein. The Petitioners applied for the post of IHM Doctor under the scheme of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) (hereinafter called the Scheme), under the reserved category of RBA. The number of posts of IHM doctors which were required to be filled up were 26 as mentioned in the said notification. Selection process, was initiated by the Respondent authorities and accordingly a select list of IHM doctors under the Scheme came to be issued vide notification dated 28th of April, 2008. Having remained unsuccessful, the Petitioners have challenged their non-selection in the present writ petition.

(2.) The grievance projected by the Petitioners is that in terms of condition No. 10, as contained in the notification, it was categorically mentioned that the appointments against the aforementioned posts were to be made in terms of the relevant recruitment rules and orders in vogue in the State Civil Services, and as such, while making the selection, the official Respondents were bound to make the selection after giving due representation to the reserved categories in terms of Reservation Rules, 2004, which provide for 20% reservation for RBA category. It is stated that out of 26 posts, six posts were required to be filled up from amongst the said category. It is contended that under similar circumstances, the Respondent-State while making the selection under the Scheme in different districts i.e. Srinagar, Budgam and Baramulla, observed the Reservation Rules and selected the candidates after giving due representation to the candidates belonging to the reserved categories of RBA, SC, ST etc. in accordance with the said Rules, but in case of selection impugned, no such criteria has been adopted and no post has been given to the reserved category candidates. It is, thus, stated that the selection impugned has been made in violation of the Rules.

(3.) The further contention raised by the Petitioners is that during the pendency ? of the writ petition, the official Respondents cancelled the earlier select list and have issued a fresh select list dated 1st of May, 2008, thereby changing the merit position of the candidates whose names figured in the earlier select list dated 28th of April, 2008. In the fresh select-list issued by the official Respondents, the names of some of, the candidates who figured in the first select list have been deleted and new names have been added which clearly reflects malafide on the part of the official Respondents. It is stated that in terms of the revised select list, the candidate figuring at serial No. 1 of the earlier list, namely, Taziena Akhter (Respondent No. 3) has been brought down to serial No. 13, and three new names have been added in the said list. The official Respondents having noticed the said discrepancies and there being total non-application of mind on the part of selecting authority, the entire selection of private Respondents is said to be illegal. It is contended that no selection committee was constituted for the purpose of making selection in accordance with the rules. The further plea raised is that two candidates figuring at serial No. 3 and 14 of the select list have not joined and, as such, the petitioned who belong to RBA category may be directed to be appointed against the said vacant posts as no candidate from the said category has been selected.