SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF J. & K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board, Jammu issued Advertisement Notice No. SSB-3 of 1995 dated 07.03.1995, whereunder applications on the prescribed form were invited from the permanent residents of J&K State for their selection to undergo Patwar training in the Revenue Training Institute, Jammu/Srinagar. It was also provided in the said notice that the candidates who will successfully complete the said training course will be eligible for appointment as Patwaries/ Office Patwaries/ Consolidation Patwaries. The writ petitioner-appellant responded to the said Advertisement Notice but he was not selected to undergo Patwar training, which constrained him to approach the Writ Court by filing SWP No. 1186/1998. Writ petitioner-appellant in the said writ petition called in question the selection of private respondents and his exclusion there from. The writ petitioner-appellant was permitted to undergo Patwar training in terms of the interim order passed by the learned Writ Court. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Writ Court by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant for appointment in terms of Advertisement Notice, whereby vacancies were notified.

(2.) The official respondents including Service Selection Board challenged the order passed by the learned Writ Court in LPASW No. 357/2001. The Letters Patent Bench vide its judgment and order dated 09.11.2005 observed that It becomes unnecessary to go into the merit of the issues raised in the first respondent s writ petition because the Writ Court direction contained in the impugned order should have been for deputing him for Partwar training, but it had wrongly directed his appointment to the post of Patwari. Even under the advertisement notice, the Patwar training only renders a candidate eligible for appointment to the post of Patwari and did not otherwise guarantee appointment in all events. This, direction, therefore, otherwise was not in order and what ought to have been directed, at best, would be to depute the first respondent for Patwar training which, in any case, was done under the interim orders of the Writ Court.

(3.) The Letters Patent Bench while modifying the impugned order of the Writ Court directed the appellants to consider the writ petitioner, appellant herein for appointment to the post of Patwari, if not already considered, and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.