MEHMOOD AKHTAR MALIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SERVICES Selection Board, Srinagar/jammu had issued Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 1999 dated 09. 03. 1999 for Selection of candidates against the Posts which included the posts of drivers in various Departments of the State government in their State/divisional/district cadres except District Leh, prescribing Middle pass possessing Hill Road Driving Licence as essential qualification for the posts. Aggrieved by the Selection of the private respondents as Drivers against Open and reserved categories, Mehmood Akhtar Malik, mohd. Parvez and Harpal Singh, the three petitioners, have filed this petition seeking quashing of the Select List published by the services Selection Board in Daily Excelsior on 26. 09. 2001, besides seeking a command against the respondents to consider them for selection and appointment against the posts. The State and its Services Selection Board have indicated in their response to the writ petition that Mehmood Akhtar Malik, petitioner no. 1 and Harpal Singh, petitioner No. 3 had competed for the District Cadre Posts whereas mohd. Parvez, petitioner No. 2 had competed for the Divisional Cadre Post of Drivers. Petitioner Nos. 1 is stated to have obtained 55. 99 points in the Open Category, whereas the last selected candidate in the Category in the rajouri District had obtained 65. 66 points. Petitioner No. 3 competing for District Cadre Posts in Jammu had obtained 58. 66 points, whereas the last selected candidate in the category had obtained 67. 99 points. As regards Mohd. Parvez, petitioner No. 2, the respondents say that having applied for seeking consideration against the posts of Drivers falling in the Divisional Cadre, he could not question the selection of the respondents made against District Cadre posts. Disputing the stand taken by the official respondents, petitioners' learned counsel submitted that petitioner No. 2 had applied seeking consideration against District Cadre Posts and respondents had erred in refusing to consider his case for selection against the posts. In view of the merit position of the other petitioners, the learned counsel was unable to support rest of the petitioners' case, in that being less meritorious, they were not entitled to selection for the advertised District Cadre posts. During the course of consideration of the petition, Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the board produced a photocopy of the Application form of petitioner No. 2 to indicate that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner was factually incorrect as he had not sought consideration for selection against District Cadre posts and had in fact applied for seeking consideration against State/divisional Cadre posts. This photocopy of the Application Form produced by Mr. Shukla is taken on records. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the photocopy of petitioner No. 2's application seeking appointment as Driver in Government Service. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3's plea that they were meritorious and had been erroneously ignored while issuing the list of candidates found selected against the District Cadre Posts, is not supported by any material on records.

(2.) STATEMENT made by the official respondents in their response to the writ petition supported by the affidavit of the Administrative Officer of the board has not been controverted by the petitioners either by placing any material on records indicating position contrary to the one affirmed by the respondents or by filing any affidavit disputing the statement made by the respondents in their reply to the writ petition. Accordingly, in the absence of any material on records indicating petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 to be superior in merit to the private respondents, the selection of the private respondents, who are stated by the official respondents to have obtained more marks than the petitioners, cannot be faulted.

(3.) PERUSAL of petitioner No. 2's application form indicates that against Column No. 4 of the application form requiring the candidates to indicate the cadre for which they had applied, petitioner No. 2 had indicated his option for seeking selection against State/divisional Cadre.