J. & K. SSRB Vs. SANJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE J & K Service Selection Recruitment Board through its Secretary has challenged the judgment and order dated 06.07.2001 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the training for appointment to the posts of Co -operative Supervisors in the pay scale of Rs. 950 -1500/ - was essential qualification. Therefore the Writ Court held that the selection and appointment of private respondents was in violation of the advertisement notice dated 29.04.1997 issued for filling up of the posts of Co -operative Supervisors. The learned Writ Court, however, did not set aside the appointment of selected candidate on that ground and issued directions to the appellant -Board to recommend the name of the writ petitioner -respondent for selection and appointment. In that regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of H.C. Puttaswamy and Ors. v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Bangalore and Ors., : AIR 1991 SC 295. The petitioner was held entitled to monetary benefits if the appointment order was not issued within a period of three months from the date, a copy of order passed by the learned Writ Court was received. On the appeal filed by the appellant -Board along with CMA No. 395/2001, the operation of the judgment was stayed by the Letters Patent Bench on 16.10.2001.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the record with their able assistance.

(3.) IT is evident from the perusal of the advertisement that a candidate was required to have 10+2 or Hr. Secondary Part II. It is further clarified that a selected candidate would be obliged to undergo Cooperative Training. The stand of the writ petitioner -respondent was that the advertisement notice necessitated the possession of Diploma in Cooperative Training as a necessary qualification which private respondents lacked and therefore their appointment was liable to be set aside. The argument raised by the appellant -Board was that there is no such essential qualification that a candidate must have a Diploma in Cooperative Training. It was further the case of the appellant that the writ petitioner -respondent obtained 48.49 points as against the last selected candidate who secured 55.45 points. Therefore, being far lower in merit, he cannot claim selection and appointment.