KAILASH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN response to Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1991 dated 29 -05 -1991 issued by the J&K State Subordinate Services Recruitment Board, 143 posts of School Teachers in the grade of Rs. 900 -1830, District Cadre Posts in Udhampur District were advertised and out of these about 36 posts for Block Gool were required to be filled. The petitioners in response to the aid Notice have applied for the appointment as Teachers in Block Gool in Udhampur District. The respondents having undertaken the exercise of assessment of the comparative merit of the candidates, who had applied and also having interviewed the eligible candidates. 36 candidates including two women candidates for Block Gool of District Udhampur and the said candidates were selected by the respondent -State. The list of the candidates, who have been selected for the post of Teachers are female as well as Males as per Annexure PM annexed to this petition. The persons of the petitioners have joined the issue and asked for writ of certiorari for quashing of the selection list made by the respondents 1 to 4 in favour of respondents 5 to 40 and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to select and appoint the petitioners as Teachers in the Education Department. The grounds taken by the petitioners in the petition are that the selection is to be made strictly in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Advertisement Notice and the rules and regulations as existed at the time of advertisement. The Advertisement Notice dated 29 -05 -1991 clearly provides that a candidate seeking consideration for the post of Teacher must possess academic qualification ËœMatric and above, preference being given to trained candidates; Mathematics and Science knowing candidates and those who know both Hindi and Urdu scripts. It is projected by the petitioners that they fulfilled all the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the Advertisement Notice and rules and regulations existing at the time of issue of advertisement notice. But it is submitted that the respondents have changed the criterion subsequently and considered only those candidates who possessed Higher Secondary Part II (12th class) qualification and excluded those who were matriculates and PUC pass. It is also submitted that the petitioners were interviewed by the interviewing committee and they changed the conditions of qualification after the interviews were conducted. It is argued that the said course is not permissible in law and the selection and consequent appointments of respondents 5 to 40 are liable to be quashed. It is further pleaded that neither the Advertisement Notice nor the rules existing at that time has made any provision for changing the qualification conditions or any other conditions subsequent to the Advertisement Notice, so any change made by the respondents 1 to 4 with the eligibility conditions is to the prejudice of the petitioners and others.

(2.) IT is further pleaded that the respondents 1 to 4 have made the selection/appointment on the basis of sex and submitted that the respondents 1 to 4 have reserved 34 posts for males and only two posts for females in the Block Gool. All the other area have been excluded and discriminated on the basis of sex.

(3.) THE selection made by the respondents 1 to 4 is against the provisions of Article 16 of .the Constitution of India and any selection made on that basis is liable to be quashed.