KAMAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ petition survives only for petitioner No. 1 with regard to his claim for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector, Executive Wing in the J&K Police. The writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioners 2 and 3 was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.05.2014.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the department advertised the vacancies of Sub Inspectors in Executive Wing on 31.01.2009. The petitioner was one of the candidate. In the process of selection, he had secured 62 marks. Several candidates being aggrieved of the process of selection had filed writ petitions in this Court. A bunch of writ petitions was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 03.05.2012 passed with lead case as SWP No. 1112/2010, titled as Shoukat Noor and others vs Jammu and Kashmir through Financial Commissioner and others. The writ petitions were dismissed. Subsequently, 37 vacancies, which were kept reserved vide interim orders in different writ petitions were released. The selection process for the remaining posts had been completed earlier. The department was required to fill up the aforesaid 37 vacancies. After the judgment of this Court only 14 out of 37 vacancies were filled up. The last selected candidate had secured 62.5 marks. As the petitioner had secured 62 marks, his candidature should also have been considered while filling up the rest of the posts. He further submitted that the posts are still available with the department as in the year 2016 the selection process was started again, which is complete, however, the appointment letters are still to be issued.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that after a bunch of writ petitions challenging the selection process, were dismissed on 03.05.2012, 37 posts which were reserved became available. 14 of them were filled up. The last selected candidates had secured 62.5 marks. The petitioner admittedly had secured 62 marks. The remaining posts were not filled up which were made part of the selection process for the year 2016, which has now been completed. Only appointment letters are to be issued after character verification. In view of these facts, the petitioner cannot claim consideration of his candidature for the vacancies advertised way back in the year 2009, specifically when there is none below the petitioner in merit, who has been selected. As admittedly the last selected candidate had secured 62.5 marks, whereas the petitioner had secured only 62 marks. There are many candidates above the petitioner who have secured marks more than 62 marks up to 62.5. None of the other candidate had raised any grievance. It is not that only the petitioner can be considered. The department can always decide as to how much vacancies are to be filled up at any stage.