IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through this writ petition is seeking quashment of order No. 515-GAD of 2000 dated 8.5.2000 by which respondents 3 to 5 have been allotted J. & K. Police Gazetted service by changing their original departments of allocation. The petitioner also seeks issuance of mandamus to the respondents to allot him J. & K. Police Gazetted service.

(2.) J & K Public Service Commission invited applications from eligible candidates for appearing in Combined Services Competitive Examination to be held by the Commission by Notification No. 15aa/95/26th Asad, 1917 dated 17th July, 1995. The petitioner being eligible candidate applied for taking the aforesaid examination and was allotted Roll No. 15488. Respondents 3 to 5 also applied. The petitioner and the said respondents appeared in the preliminary, main examination as well as in the interview and were selected for appointment. Respondent No. 2 vide its notification No. PSC/EX/99/25 dated 26.4.1999 issued the select list of various candidates, including the petitioner. In the said list petitioner was shown at S. No. 243 whereas respondents 3 to 5 were shown at S. Nos. 244, 246 and 251 respectively. The petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe category. Respondents 3 to 5 were selected under Open Merit category. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 5 were allotted J&K Accounts Gazetted service and respondent No. 4 was allotted J & K Co-operative Gazetted service. After the allocation of departments the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 appear to have applied for change of their respective departments. The Government vide its order No. 515-GAD of 2000 dated 8.5.2000 ordered for change of departments of respondents 3 to 5 to J & K Police Gazetted service and directed their adjustment against the newly created four additional posts of Dy. S.Ps. in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000. As the change of department was not allowed in favour of the petitioner, he has filed the present writ petition seeking the abovesaid direction.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he possessed better merit than respondents 3 to 5 and as such if the challenge of department was to be allowed, then it should have been allowed in his favour instead of respondents 3 to 5. Private respondents have not contested the petition.