JAGMOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the State Constitution seeking following substantive reliefs: -

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to an advertisement notice No. AIG(P) -33159 -219 dt. 20th of Aug91, issued by the respondents, he applied for the post of Sub Inspector in the executive wing of the Jammu and Kashmir Police. It is stated that as per the advertisement the educational qualification required for the post was graduation and the maximum age limit was fixed as 28 years as on Ist of Jan91. The petitioner being eligible submitted his application to be considered against the said post and participated in the selection process which comprised of physical measurement test, out door test, written test and viva -voce. It is stated that the petitioner qualified all the tests and was called for interview also. It is further stated that the petitioner had applied under NCC category as he was possessing "B" and "C" certificates under this category and had to be considered accordingly. It is stated that in terms of Circular No.7 -GD/Admn of 1976 dated 27th of April76, the persons who were having "C" certificate in NCC category were to be given preference while seeking appointment in the Police department. The respondents issued the select list in the month of Nov92, in which the name of the petitioner did not figure.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that even though he had secured 164 marks, one Jabeen Akhtar who had secured only 161 marks was given the appointment, whereas the petitioner having higher merit was ignored. It is stated that the aforesaid Jabeen Akhtar was selected under "women category whereas no such category was provided in the advertisement notice. It is thus stated that the petitioner who was having better merit as compared to the aforesaid Jabeen Akhtar was entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector. The further grievance of the petitioner is that after his name was ignored, he moved a representation before respondent No.2 who recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment vide his communication dt. 29th of Sept93. It is stated that before the concerned authorities could consider his case for appointment in view of the recommendations made by the respondent No.2 -Director General of Police, the petitioner became over -age. It is further stated that the petitioner made a representation before the then Chief Minister, who also recommended the case of the petitioner with the following remarks: -