MANU KAPOOR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal, filed by respondent No.101 in the Writ petition/ appellant herein, is directed against the judgment dated 24th of November, 2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.15474/2020, whereby the petition of the Writ petitioner/ respondent No.4 herein stands disposed of on the following terms:

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal, as come to the fore from the perusal of the pleadings on record, are that the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board-respondent No.2, vide advertisement notification Nos. 05 of 2013 dated 2nd of March, 2013 and 06 of 2013 dated 10th of May, 2013, invited applications for the posts of Teachers in District Cadre Poonch. The Writ petitioner/ respondent No.4 herein claimed to have responded to both the aforesaid notifications by submitting her application forms to respondent No.2 against proper receipts/ acknowledgements. It is stated that the respondent No.2 conducted common selection process for the posts put to advertisement in terms of the aforesaid two notifications, however, the candidates were separately shortlisted in relation to each notification. The Writ petitioner/ respondent No.4 herein appears to have been shortlisted with reference to notification No.05/2013 only, wherein, later on, she could not make the grade because of her lower merit vis--vis the candidate last selected in the selection process carried out pursuant to notification No.05 of 2013. The Writ petitioner/ respondent No.4 herein claims to have obtained overall merit of 59.5169 points and, accordingly, placed in the wait list of the open merit category at S. No.5 against notification No.05 of 2013. The Writ petitioner/ respondent No.4 herein, claimed before the Writ Court, that she, after comparing her merit indicated in the waiting list (OM category) in relation to notification No.05 of 2013, found that on the basis of her merit, she was entitled to be shortlisted even in relation to advertisement notification No.06 of 2013, but had not been shortlisted by the respondents arbitrarily, despite representation made by the Writ petitioner/ respondent No.4 in this behalf. This, as stated, compelled the Writ petitioner/ respondent No.4 herein to file the aforesaid writ petition before the Writ Court. The learned Single Judge, in terms of the impugned judgment, disposed of the petition filed by the Writ petitioner/ respondent No.4 herein with the observations as reproduced in Paragraph No.1 of this judgment hereinabove. It is this judgment that has been assailed before this Court by the appellant/ respondent No.101 in the Writ petition.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings on record and have considered the matter.