STATE OF J&K Vs. BUDHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 6.7.2001 passed in SWP No. 1810/98 directing the State Government to determine the ratio proportion of vacancies and offer the same to the petitioners who are in the merit list prepared by the commission.

(2.) BY reference letter No. PD(E and S) - 602 - 72/79 Dated 20.6.1980 Administrative Department of the Government referred 11 posts of Assistant Director Statistics - cum - Evaluation for selection to the Public Service Commission. Subsequently 13 more posts were referred vide Letter No. PD (E & S) 602/72/79 dated 30.9.1981. On the basis of two references Public Service Commission vide Notification No. PSC/EH - 92/22 dated 15.12.1982 invited applications from all eligible candidates for direct recruitment for the aforementioned posts. Pursuant to the notification, Commission received 231 applications, out of which 18 upon scrutiny by the eligibility committee were rejected. The written examination of eligible candidates was conducted w.e.f. 20.2.1984 to 1.3.1984. Only 54 candidates qualified for the viva - voce test which was conducted on 11th & 12th March 1985 for the candidates Jammu Division and on 14 & 15 March 1985 for the candidates of Kashmir Division. For viva - voce test the Public Service Commission associated an eminent expert on the subject from outside the State and amongst others, the then Additional Secretary, Planning Department was also associated as departmental observer. The inter se merit based on the basis of written examination, viva - voce test as well as overall performance for the purposes of merit and suitability was judged and a merit list of 20 candidates was recommended for appointment. 18 candidates were in the open category while two candidates were from scheduled caste category. It is not in dispute that out of 20 candidates 19 candidates joined.

(3.) WRIT Petitioners namely respondents herein on not finding their names in the merit list filed writ petition being SWP No. 946/85. In the writ petition two grievances were made, one was in regard to the appointments of respondents 3 to 8 therein and second was that more than 24 posts were available for direct recruitment but only 20 candidates were selected. In this regard the writ petitioners contended that as per government order the appointments to the post had to be made in the ratio of 50:50 i.e. 50% had to be appointed by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. The selection of private respondents was challenged on the ground that they being in service candidates entered the examination and procured selection without their applications submitted through their Head of Departments. Writ Petition was contested by the private respondents, the Public Service Commission and the Government. In the facts and circumstances of the case learned Single Judge in his order dated 24.12.1987 did not find that the said respondents were disqualified for selection. Learned Judge also did not find anything wrong regarding the declaration of result as contemplated by Rule 30 of Public Service Commission Rules. It was observed that Rule 30 provides after the final selection is made, a list of selected candidates according to the merit will be published in government gazette and the candidates who are not selected cannot claim violation of rule merely on the ground that their names do not find place in the gazette notified. The writ petition, however, was allowed only to the extent that official respondents 1 and 2 therein were directed to maintain quota of 50% for direct recruits and 50% for promotees strictly in accordance with the rules and in case the quota of direct recruit was to be increased, the writ petitioners, if they made up their mark on merits in the list of final selection, were to be considered for appointment.