RAJ KUMAR KAUL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SELECTION of respondents No.4 and 5 for the post of Junior Opthalmic Assistants made by the J&K Services Selection Board and notified vide select list dated 19 -1 -1996 has been challenged in the present petition. Petitioner and private respondents were candidates for selection to the post of Junior Opthalmic Assistants for which applications were invited vide Advertisement Notice No. 5 of 1995 dated 5 -6 -1995. Two posts were notified for Open category, whereas one for RBA category. The qualification as prescribed in the notification was Matric with diploma in Junior Opthalmic Assistant Training from SFM or any other recognized institute. Posts were available in District Anantnag. After receiving the applications, the selection committee was constituted for interview. Respondents No.4 & 5 who hail from District Anantnag were interviewed in Valley by the Committee comprising of (i) Smt Sudhna Hafiz, convener; (ii) Chief Medical Officer, Member and (iii) District Employment Officer concerned, Member. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was interviewed at Jammu. It is alleged that interviews were fixed on 6 -11 -1995. However, due to non -availability of expert same were postponed and the interviews were conducted on 8 -11 -1995. Challenge to the selection is made by the petitioner on the following grounds: - (i) That the petitioners interview was conducted without an expert and therefore, he has been assessed by a Selection committee without any expert. It is alleged that two different selection committees have conducted the interviews which caused prejudice to the petitioner. (ii) he third vacancy meant for RBA category has not been filled up due to non -availability of candidate from the said category,. According to the petitioner under Rule 15 (4) SRO 126 of 1994 the vacancy was required to be filled up from open category. (iii) The criterion fixed for the selection has not been applied. The selection was to be based by taking into account the merit in Matric as also the Diploma in Opthalmic Assistant, the basic qualification notified whereas the selection has been made by only taking into consideration the merit in Diploma (Technical Qualification) and not the Matric which was one of the basic qualification as notified in Advertisement.

(2.) THE respondent Board contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to secure the merit over and above the private respondent in the process of selection. It is disclosed that the petitioner secured 54.91 points whereas respondents No.4 & 5 secured 55.20 and 56.60 points. The merit of the petitioner being less he could not be selected. Regarding the association of expert, it is specifically mentioned that Dr. M.P. Gupta, Dy Director (State Malaria Officer) was co -opted as expert Member as Dr Mohd Hussain could not be present on the date when the petitioner was interviewed.

(3.) THIS petition was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 17 -8 -1999. However, in the appeal preferred being LPA (SW) No. 18/2000 the judgment of this Court was set aside and the case remanded to the writ Court, for deciding afresh after giving an opportunity to the private respondents who were the appellants before the appellate Court.