REITESH KOUL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. P. N Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has instructions not to press this petition to the extent of petitioner No.2 and his name be deleted from the array of party petitioners. Submission allowed. Accordingly, petitioner No.2 is deleted from the array of petitioners.

(2.) The facts in brief as detailed in the petition are narrated as under:- The petitioner is a resident of village Sholipora, Budgam, which has been declared as backward area, however, he is residing at Jammu as migrant for the last 23 years and deemed to be treated as bonafide candidate of the resident of backward area and is entitled to seek employment under RBA category. His father possess RBA certificate showing that the petitioner is a resident of backward area. It is contended that petitioner has applied for issuance of RBA category certificate in the year 2011, whereupon the official respondents had conducted enquiry for the said purpose and the said enquiry came to be concluded with the findings that the petitioner is entitled for issuance of RBA certificate, however, respondent No.2 had not issued the certificate even after the recommendations made by competent authority and as also the interim direction dated 20.03.2015 issued by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the petition filed by the petitioner bearing OWP No.316/2015. It is also contended that during the pendency of the application of the petitioner for issuance of RBA certificate, the respondent No.3 issued Advertisement Notice No.04 of 2017, inviting applications for various posts including four posts of the Village Level Workers under Prime Minister Package for Kashmir Migrants in the department of Disaster Management, Relief, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction. Being eligible, petitioner applied for the said post. Respondents initiated the selection process in which petitioner participated and found place in the provisional select list, figuring at Sr. No.3 issued by the respondent No.3-J&K Services Selection Board under RBA category, however due to non-availability of RBA certificate, the name of the petitioner could not be recommended for issuance of formal appointment order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has knocked the portals of this Court seeking indulgence.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ record.