ASIFA KHAN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08 -04 -1987 delivered by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 136/1982 whereby the appointment of the appellant (respondent No. 6 in the writ petition) has been quashed and the respondents 1 and 2 have been directed to consider the case of the respondent No. 6, herein, alongwith all other eligible candidates for the post of Junior Research Assistant in Ëœpromotion -quotaâ„¢ retrospectively.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the respondent No.3, Director Fisheries Department, J&K Govt. Srinagar referred two vacancies of Jr. Assistants to respondent No. 2 Chairman Divisional Recruitment Board, for selection of suitable candidates. The vacancies were advertised under Advertisement Notice No. 1 of 1981 -82 dated 20th Oct. 1981 prescribing eligibility qualification as TDC Final (Medical) . The respondent No.6 while working as Supervisor in the Department of respondent No.2, also applied for the post of Junior Research Assistant against the said advertisement for his selection. The respondents Nos. 4, 5 and the appellant came to be selected whereas the respondent No. 6 could not be selected as he was not possessing eligibility qualification. He challenged the selection of the selected candidates on the ground that he though fully qualified, has not been selected.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 has promulgated SRO No. 222 dated 11th April, 1979, containing service rules, known as The Jammu and Kashmir Fisheries (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979, schedule contained therein suggests the method and manner of recruitment that 25% posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment for which eligibility qualification is TDC Final (Medical) and 75% post to be filled up from Class III, Category A. The respondent No. 6 has stated in the writ petition that his claim was that in case three posts of Jr. Research Assistants were vacant, two were to be filled up by promotion and only one was to be filled up by direct recruitment. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 have selected and appointed three candidates in direct quota in violation of the Rules, whereby the chances of respondent No. 6 for promotion have been marred, which has also visited the petitioner with civil consequences.