SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH these writ petitions the petitioners are challenging the selections/appointments of private respondents as Junior Assistants made by the J&K; Service Selection Board. The Service Selection Board issued advertisement notice No. 3/1996 on 24.12.1996 inviting application from the eligible candidates for filling up the vacancies shown in the advertisement notice. The qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Assistant was Matric with knowledge of typewriting with the speed of 30 words per minute. Some more vacancies becoming available, another advertisement notice No. 7/1997 was issued. The petitioners in these petitions, alongwith private respondents, applied for their selection for the posts notified for the districts of Rajouri and Poonch. The petitioners were not selected by the Board, whereas private respondents came to be selected for appointment. The petitioners are calling in question their selections, inter alia on the grounds that the selections had been made in violation of the norms of fairness, corrupt practices were adopted by the Selection Committee, typing sheets of the candidates pertaining to the typing test held by the committee were replaced and in some cases candidates were allowed to complete their task subsequently. Selection process was initiated in the year 1998 in the month of April and was completed within a week's time yet for two long years the list remained subject to modification, changes and interpolations at the behest of some political persons. The petitioners were meritorious but their merit was ignored for extraneous considerations and instead private respondent, who were less meritorious, were selected.

(2.) THE stand of the respondent -Board is that in response to the advertisement notices issued by the Board 1240 candidates applied against 29 posts of Junior Assistants in district cadre Rajouri and similarly 979 candidates applied in respect of the 18 posts available in district cadre Poonch. The prescribed qualification for the said post was Matric with knowledge of typewriting with 30 words per minute speed. For conducting type test of the candidates of Jammu Division the Chairman S.S. Board authorized S. Harbans Singh and for Kashmir Division candidates Sh. Abdul Qadeer was authorized for conducting such test. The Convener S. Harbans Singh as per the orders of the Chairman co -opted two members in the selection committee who were District Employment Officer and Superintendent ITI Rajouri in case of Rajouri district and District Employment Officer and Superintendent ITI in case of district Poonch. For type test and making selections of Junior Assistants following criteria was approved by the Board: -

(3.) EACH of the candidate was provided with type test paper containing 300 words to be typed out in ten minutes. To evaluate candidate's per minute typing speed thereafter type script were got evaluated and a statement showing per minute speed of the candidates was prepared. Then merit list was prepared by giving higher weightage to candidates and according to the merit list 18 candidates, 17 in open category and one in RBA category, were recommended for appointment as Junior Assistants in district cadre Rajouri as out of five posts reserved for RBA category only one candidate could qualify the type test. No candidate belonging to other reserved categories was able to qualify the type test. In respect of Poonch district it is stated that likewise merit list was prepared and on the basis of type test the petitioner in both the petitions had failed to make the grade, their merit was less than the last candidate selected. As regards the merit position in respect of SWP 1222/2000 pertaining to Rajouri district it has been stated that except petitioner No. 2, whose speed in type test was 30.17 P/M all other petitioners were found to be below 30 words p/m. Whereas the merit position of the respondents 4 to 18 was more than the petitioners, and the type speed of the last selected candidate was found to be 32 words p/m. Therefore, according to the respondents the petitioners had failed to make the grade, as such, were not selected by the Board.