ISHTIAQ AHMED Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide Advertisement Notification dtd. 7/4/2010, the respondent No.2 invited applications from the permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir for recruitment of Constables in the J&K Executive Police. The selection was envisaged to be made at the district level. The number of posts available in each district, however, was not indicated in the Advertisement Notification. The petitioners claim that being eligible; participated in the recruitment process as ST candidates, but, were not selected. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed SWP No. 2644/2010 challenging the selection of respondents 7 and 8 under the ST category and sought direction to the respondents to consider and appoint them as Constables. The writ petition was disposed of by the Bench of this Court vide its judgment dtd. 8/4/2013 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment on the six posts of Constables which were reserved vide order dtd. 12/11/2010 in the J&K Executive Police in the light of the observations made in the said order. The respondents were also called upon to consider and take a decision within four weeks from the date copy of the order was served. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on the analogy of similar writ petition titled Ashu Dutt v. State and others in SWP No. 2728/2010 decided on 6/10/2012.

(2.) In compliance to the judgment of this Court dtd. 8/4/2013 (supra) the respondent No.2 considered the claim of the petitioners for appointment as Constables, but, did not find the same tenable on merits. The respondent No.2, thus, passed the order No.2201 of 2013 dtd. 3/8/2013 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for appointment as Constables in the J&K Executive Police. It is this order of the respondent No.2, which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) The order impugned passed by the respondent No.2 (supra) has been assailed by the petitioners primarily on the ground that the same is based on incorrect facts. On behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted that the cut-off in the ST category was 21 points whereas the marks secured by the petitioners in the recruitment process as is admitted by the respondents also, are 22.5, 24, 22.5, and 21.5 marks/points respectively. It is, thus, claimed that the respondent No.2 could not have rejected the claim of the petitioners for appointment when it has selected and appointed the candidates, who have secured 21 marks, i.e., the marks less than the marks secured by the petitioners in the recruitment process. The impugned order has also been assailed by the petitioners on the ground that failure of the respondent No.2 to indicate the vacancy position in the Advertisement Notification also vitiates the whole selection and therefore, if the selection was to be saved, the respondent No.2 too was under obligation to offer the appointment to the petitioners.