SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 08.07.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the claim made by the appellant that the respondents did not fulfill the requisite qualification for appointment as Senior Horticulture Technician. It is pertinent to mention that an advertisement notice was issued on 21.11.2005 inviting applications, inter alia, for the post of Senior Horticulture Technician. The appellant applied under Scheduled Caste Category. In the selection process he was not short listed for interview because he had secured 32.1 points whereas the last short listed candidate in Scheduled Caste Category secured 46.26 points which is a huge gap. The learned Writ Court has held that the appellant did not challenge the short listing criteria and process of selection but has challenged the selection of private respondents which is wholly impermissible. It has further been held that once the appellant has applied for the post under Scheduled Caste Category his writ petition could not be entertained to challenge the selection of candidates who have been selected in other categories.

(2.) In respect of other contentions raised by the appellant that the private respondents did not fulfill the requisite qualification of B.Sc. Horticulture or B.Sc. Agriculture with Horticulture as a major subject, the learned Writ Court held that once the appellant had participated in the selection process without questioning the advertisement then he cannot be permitted to challenge the selection. In that regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dhananjay Malik and others v. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2008 4 SCC 171.

(3.) Mr. Amrish Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the stand of the Services Selection Board-respondent No.2 in the counter affidavit is that the selection committee did not undertake any exercise to find out whether the candidate with qualification of B.Sc. Agriculture had studied Horticulture as a major subject during their graduation. Therefore, it must be concluded that the appellant, who was one of the candidates holding basic degree of B.Sc. Horticulture was entitled to be considered and appointed.