WAJAHAT WASEEM RATHER Vs. STATE OF JK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to notification No. PSC/Exam/2018/19 dated 15th of March, 2018 issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"), the petitioner applied for the post of Range Officer Grade-1 in the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Department. The petitioner, as stated, appeared in the written examination under application form No.18071900000169. It is stated that the Commission has notified the result of the main examination vide notification No. PSC/Exam/56/2019 dated 25th of June, 2019, whereby 40 candidates have been declared qualified to appear in the interview/ viva voce. Since, the name of the petitioner did not figure in the aforesaid result notification, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction in the name of the respondents to re-notify the result notification dated 25th of June, 2019, after maintaining 1:5 ratio in the selection process for filling up all the 44 advertised posts of Range Officers Grade-I. A direction is also sought by the petitioner against the respondents to allow him to participate in the Personality Test/ interview and, thereafter, consider him for selection/ appointment for the post of Range Officer GradeI alongwith all other eligible candidates.

(2.) Mr Salih Prizada, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while questioning the non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the result notification dated 25th of June, 2019, submits that in terms of SRO 438 of 2015 dated 11th of December, 2015 read with SRO 310 of 2019 dated 26th of April, 2019, against the 44 number of vacancies, including 19 reserved seats, the respondents had to call 220 candidates for interview/ viva voce corresponding to five times the number of vacancies, however, the respondents have, in violation of the aforesaid statutory requirement of calling five times the number of vacancies, only notified 40 candidates against 44 vacancies. The learned counsel further submits that in case the number of candidates is increased by application of SRO 438 read with SRO 310, the name of the petitioner would, too, have got incorporated in the result notification.

(3.) Mr Azhar-ul-Amin, the learned counsel for the respondents, available in the Court, would submit that in terms of the rules governing the field, only such competing candidate is called for interview/ viva voce who secures the benchmark percentage of marks in the written examination, i.e. at least 40 % in each subject. The learned counsel further submits that, seemingly, the petitioner has not secured the benchmark percentage in each of the subjects and, therefore, he has not been rightly called for the interview/ viva voce.