SHEIKH MUZAFFAR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Director General of Police, J&K State - respondent herein, on 9th March 2007, issued Advertisement Notice, inviting applications from eligible candidates for available vacancies of Constables (Operator) in J&K Police Telecommunication. The advertised posts were to carry pay scale of 2750-4400. The Advertisement Notice laid down eligibility and selection criteria to be followed while making selection. The Notice attracted huge response. In all 2788 candidates applied for advertised posts. Petitioners and private respondents in writ petitions on hand were amongst the candidates who responded to the notice.

(2.) Selection process, as laid down in Advertisement Notice, comprised of measurement of physical standards, outdoor tests, written test, and viva-voce or personality assessment. On completion of selection process, select list was notified vide PHQ No.2844-2609 dated 1st August 2009. Respondents instead of making selection at State or Divisional level, made selection at district level and issued district-wise selection list. Petitioners did not find place in the Select List.

(3.) Petitioners, in writ petitions on hand, are non-selected candidates. They, in the first round of litigation, questioned Select List in five writ petitions, registered as SWP Nos.1177/2009, 1270/2009, 1478/2009, 1527/2009, and 1802/2009. Once Select List was acted upon and appointment orders issued in favour of selected candidates, petitioners filed fresh writ petition, being SWP No.1352/2010, now throwing challenge to appointment orders of selected candidates. As per the statement made by learned counsel, petitioners 8, 12,13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 33, 44, 51, 60, 70, 72, 73 & 75 in SWP No.1478/2009; petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50 & 52 in SWP No.1177/2009; petitioners 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 & 42 in SWP No.1270/2009; petitioners 4, 5, 8, 9, 22, 25, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, & 50 in SWP No.1527/2009; petitioners 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 75, 76, 78, 79 in SWP No.1807/2009; and petitioners 5,6,7, 14, 22, 37, 43, 44, 47, 59, 144, 147, 162 in SWP no.1352/2010, have lost interest in prosecuting their respective writ petitions. Writ petitions, therefore, survive to the extent of only 167 petitioners, out of whom 148 have responded to advertisement notice under Open Merit Category and 19 under Reserved Categories.