SHEIKH JAVEIRIA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Advertisement Notice No.02 of 2014 dated 30th December 2014, J &K Services Selection Board, issued, inviting online applications from eligible candidates for participating in selection process for various State, Divisional and District cadre posts. Amongst others, posts of Junior Engineers (Mechanical) in Public Works (R &B) Department of the J &K State, were notified. Petitioner and respondent no.3 responded thereto. Petitioner claims to have been called for objective type written test conducted by respondent Board under Handicapped Category, which she states to have qualified as she figures at serial no.120 with Roll no.22303016342, in the List of Shortlisted candidates to be called for interview against the post in question. This was followed by Notification dated 10th February 2016, informing shortlisted candidates as to conducting of interview. After conducting interview, selection list of candidates for the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) was issued, in which petitioner did not find place whereas respondent no.3 was selected. The moment she came to know about her non-inclusion in the selection list, she claims to have approached respondent Board that as she had secured 55 points, then why she had not been selected and how respondent no.3, who had secured 50.750 points only, had been selected. Petitioner was informed by respondent Board that her Handicapped Category Certificate had not been considered for the reason that it was valid for five years only. Upon having information of respondent Board having not considered her Handicapped Certificate for the reason of Handicapped Certificate being valid for five years only, petitioner made a representation to Chairman, J &K Services Selection Board, for her inclusion in select list. Petitioner, aggrieved of her exclusion from selection list, has knocked at portals of this Court on 6th April 2016, with writ petition (SWP no.759/2016), seeking following relief:

(2.) Writ petition (SWP no.759/2016), at its threshold, was listed on 7th April 2016 and select list qua respondent no.3 was stayed.

(3.) When the matter came up for consideration on 28th December 2016, the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that respondent no.3 had secured lesser marks than the petitioner and notwithstanding petitioner having secured 55% marks and respondent no.3 only 50% marks, yet during pendency of writ petition, respondent no.3 is alleged to be appointed on the post in question. It would be advantageous to reproduce order dated 28th December 2016 hereunder: