ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J&K Service Selection Board (for short 'Board'), vide its Advertisement Notice No.03 of 2012 dtd. 28/12/2012, invited applications for direct recruitment of Junior Engineers (Electrical) in the Power Development Department. The qualification prescribed for the said posts was diploma/degree in Electrical Engineering. The petitioners, possessing the qualification of B.E. (Electrical) responded to the aforesaid notification. Petitioner No.1 applied under RBA category, whereas petitioner No.2 submitted his application form under SC category. Both the petitioners were selected in their respective categories and were appointed by the Government in the Department of Power Development vide Government Order No. 87-PDD of 2015 dtd. 24/4/2015 and Government Order No.PDD-104 of 2015 dtd. 5/6/2015 respectively. It may be noted that though as per the Recruitment Rules governing the selection and appointment of Junior Engineer (Electrical) by direct recruitment, the degree and diploma qualifications in Electrical Engineering are treated at par, but the Board, while laying down the selection criteria, earmarked five additional points to those possessing the qualification of degree. This resulted into an edge in favour of the degree holders.

(2.) The aggrieved diploma holders, who could not make it to the select list, challenged the action of the Board in SWP No. 874/2015 titled Zubair Ahmed and anr vs. J&K SSB in which the petitioners too were arrayed as party respondents. The said writ petition was allowed in view of the judgment already rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPASW No. 126/2015 titled Sartaj Ahmed Dar vs J&K SSB and ors on 31/8/2015. The Board was directed to reframe the select list after awarding five points to all Degree/Diploma holders across the board. In compliance to the judgment passed by the Division Bench (supra), the merit was re-determined and five additional points were also awarded to the diploma holders. In the recast list, six of the diploma holders, who were not earlier selected, made it to the select list. Resultantly, equal number of Degree Holders came to be ousted. Six candidates could not make it to the revised list reframed pursuant to the directions of this Court in LPASW No. 126/2015 which included the petitioners herein as well. The respondents, as is revealed by them in their objections, after seeking opinion of the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, cancelled the appointments of six ousted candidates including the petitioners in terms of the Government Order No.04-PDD of 2018 dtd. 1/1/2018. It is this order the petitioners have called in question in this writ petition. Apart from challenging the impugned order which is purportedly passed by the respondents in compliance to the judgment of the Division Bench (supra), the petitioners have also prayed for accommodating them against the posts that have remained unfilled due to non joining of some of the candidates appointed pursuant to the revised list.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that so far as the challenge of the petitioners to the Government Order dtd. 1/1/2018 is concerned, the same must fail. Indubitably, the impugned order dtd. 1/1/2018 has been passed by the Government to comply with the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Sartaj Ahmed (supra) which, as is admitted by the parties, was implemented after it attained finality. It is also not in dispute that the Board had gone overboard in awarding five additional points to the degree holders despite the fact that the legal position in this regard had since been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Verma vs. State of J&K and ors. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court had concluded that once the Recruitment Rules equate two qualifications, the selection authority cannot give advantage to the one over the other on the ground that one is a higher qualification than the other. It is this serious illegality committed by the Board which was set right by the Division Bench of this Court in Sartaj Ahmed's case (supra). After the said judgment attained finality, the respondents had no option, but to implement the same. The impugned order dtd. 1/1/2018 has been issued to comply with the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench and, therefore, cannot be called in question by the petitioners, more particularly, when they were also party to the litigation.