SARNANDAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide Notification No. DIP/J-3247-P/18 dtd. 13/10/2018 issued by respondent No.4 which came to be published in Daily Excelsior on 14/10/2018, the applications were invited for hiring staff under revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme for Kathua District. Amongst others, three posts of Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS) at Block level for Medical Block Nagri Parole/TU Kathua, Medical Block/TU Hiranagar and Medical Block/TU Bani were also invited. The notification further indicated the essential qualification and the preferential qualification for the posts of STS. As is claimed by the petitioner, he being in possession of both the essential and preferential qualification applied for the post of STS Block Nagri Parole/TU Kathua. The respondent No.4 with a view to making the selection published selection criteria vide its Notification No. DIP/J/3386/19 dtd. 4/7/2019 published in Daily Excelsior on 6/7/2019, whereby for the post of STS, the essential qualification has been allocated 70 marks, additional qualification 10 marks and viva voce 20 marks. The petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid notification dtd. 4/7/2019 and claims that by fixing the selection criteria allocating 70 marks to the essential qualification and only 10 marks to the preferential qualification, the respondent No.4 has not only changed the rules of the game but has rendered the preferential qualification if any possessed by the candidate redundant.

(2.) The short grievance of the petitioner is that when the candidates like the petitioner with preferential qualification are available, the respondent No.2 cannot make the selection from amongst the candidates who do not possess the preferential qualification. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. v. P. Dalip Kumar and ors, (1993) 2 SCC 310, the petitioner claims that the candidates possessing preferential qualification should be selected en bloc and it is only after exhausting the candidates with the preferential qualification, the candidates possessing the essential/basic qualification can be considered. It is thus urged that impugned notification has the effect of even selecting the candidates who do not possess the preferential qualification.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, I am of the view that no illegality has been committed by the respondent No.4 in formulating the selection criteria earmarking 70 marks to the basic/essential qualification and 10 marks for the additional/preferential qualification, if any, possessed by the candidate. The petitioner, however, does not dispute allocation of the 20 marks for the viva voce. Reference to the advertisement notification dtd. 13/10/2018 issued by the respondent No.4 would show that for the post of STS, the respondent No.4 has indicated the essential qualification as well as the preferential qualification as under: