SAT PAL SHARMA Vs. STATE RECRUITMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER a serving, Sub -Inspector, Excise and Taxation Department, Jammu in 1981 filed this writ petition challenging Government Order No. 207/Adm of 1981 dated November 5, 1981, whereby respondents 3 to 10 have been appointed on the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors and prayed also for a writ of Mandamus for issuing a command to respondents 1&2 to appoint the petitioner against the post of Inspector, Excise and Taxation.

(2.) IT is stated in the petition that the petitioner was at the time when the petition was filed on November 27, 1981 holding the posts of sub -Inspector, Excise and Taxation Department in the substantive capacity and at the time when the impugned order was passed appointing respondents 3 to 10. He was duly qualified to be appointed as an Inspector in the Excise and Taxation Department. With the permission of the court, the amended petition was filed on June 21, 1982. Vide Advertisement Notice No. 5 of 1978 dated September 16, 1978, applications were invited by respondent No. 1 the then Recruitment Board from the qualified candidates for the appointment of various posts including the posts of Inspector in the Excise and Taxation Department. Petitioner also applied for the direct recruitment for the said posts being duly qualified and was, therefore, called for interview on June 26, 1980. However, in the result when he found that respondents 3 to 10 were only appointed after selection to the posts of Inspectors attacked the selection by this writ petition alleging it to be arbitrary and without following any rules, by the Recruitment Board. The constitution of the Board was also attacked including the order impugned in the present writ petition issued by respondent No. 2 on November 5, 1981 claiming that the fundamental rights of the petitioner have been violated, as the order is discriminatory and against the provisions of the rules framed under section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Undisputedly respondents 3 to 10 were appointed by the order impugned on the basis of the recommendations made by the said Recruitment Board on the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors. By way of consequential relief, prayer is also made for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus for directions to the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector.

(3.) THE petition is contested by the respondents 1 and 2 have filed their counter respectively. Strangely enough the petition is pending since 1981, but the State of J&K has not been impleaded as a party respondent to the writ petition. Respondents in their counter affidavits submitted that the petitioner was duly interviewed by the Recruitment Board constituted far the purpose of selection on the post of Inspector, Excise and Taxation Department and the selection was made in accordance with Rule 5 of the J&K Civil Service (Decentralization of Recruitment to non -gazetted cadres) Rules, 1969, which empowers the Recruitment Board to finalise the selections to hold such tests or examinations, as may be prescribed under rules or, if there are no such rules, as the Board concerned may consider necessary. The Board, therefore, adhered to the rules and there is no arbitrariness as alleged in the selections. Neither the rules have been violated nor there was any discrimination in selection, which was objectively done, wherein the petitioner was not found fit for selection as compared to respondents 3 to 10, hence they were duly selected and appointed under impugned order, which in no way violate the fundamental right of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 also stated that when the interviews were held, the petitioner was not declared qualified in the Departmental -Examination, moreover, on consideration of merit and suitability of the petitioner, the petitioner lacked in merit vis ƒ   -vis selected respondents 3 to 10, hence could not be appointed on the post of Inspector, Excise and Taxation Department Respondent No. 1 also -stated that the Board, which interviewed the candidates was duly constituted consisting of five members mentioned in the counter affidavit, of which there is no rejoinder on record controverting the allegations made by the respondents in their counter.