RAJINDER KUMAR TIKKU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were selected for the posts of teachers in the non -medical category in Leh vide order No. 1 -DRB of 1987 dated 12 -8 -1987 by the Recruitment Committee constituted vide Govt. Order No. 115 -GDof 1987dated 21 -1 -1987 read with Circular No. 18 -GD of 1987 dated 18 -5 -1987. They figured at S. Nos. 36, 39, 41, 44 and 49 in the non -medical category. It seems that the appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates figuring at S. Nos. 1 to 32 in this category and the petitioners were asked to stand -by. However, they were not appointed in due course and meanwhile respondent No. 2 issued advertisement notice No. 7 of 1983 dated 2 -8 -1988 inviting application for the posts of teachers in Leh district. This prompted them to file the present writ petition on 29 -8 -1988 seeking quashment of the advertisement notice (supra) and a writ of mandamus to respondents to appoint them on the posts of teachers on the basis of the selection made vide No. 1 -DRB of 1987. Their case is that under rule 11 of SRO -459 of 1987 dated 15 -9 -1987 (J&K Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules), respondent No.1 was obliged to forward their names to the administrative department which was further duty bound to appoint them and by not doing so the respondents have infringed and violated their right of appointment.

(2.) IN their objections respondents have explained that Rule 11 of the 1987 Rules, had no application in the matter as the petitioners were selected by the Recruitment Committee constituted vide Govt. Order No. 115 -GDof 1987 dated 27 -1 -1987 read with Circular No. 18 -GD of 1987 under the Decentralisation Rules of 1969 and not by the Subordinate Services Selection Board constituted under the Governors Act of 1986 or any committee appointed by such Board. It is also submitted that they could not be appointed for non -availability of vacancies at the relevant time and they had no right to challenge the selection for filling up of vacancies referred to the Subordinate Services Selection Board (SSRB) in the subsequent orders. It is pointed out that they were candidates for the vacancies referred to the SSRB in 1088 -89 on the basis of their selection made by the recruitment committee pursuant to Govt Order No. 115 -GD of 1987.

(3.) ALL that remains to be examined in this petition is whether Rule 11 of the 1987 Rules, is attracted to the petitioners case and whether that rule casts an obligation on the respondent -State to appoint the petitioners to the posts of teachers. It is also required to be seen whether the petitioners can claim any automatic right of appointment to the posts referred to the SSRB in the subsequent year i. e. 1989 -90, SRO -459 of 1987 reads thus;