GURDITT SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition is aggrieved by the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 on the post of Agronomist in Agriculture Department and therefore, challenges their appointment orders respectively vide Government order No. 487 -Agri. of 1977 dated November 28, 1977, and Govt. Order No. 539 -Agri of 1977 dated December 24, 1977.

(2.) IT is further alleged that the respondents 3 and 4 have been appointed by the respondent no. 1 on selection made by the respondent no. 2 in violation of the J&K Agricultural Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules 1971, issued vide SRO 545 of 1971 dated 9.11.1971 ignoring the claims of the petitioner who holds better qualifications and experience as against the respondents.

(3.) THE facts giving facts to the petition lie in a very short compass. Respondent 2, the state Public Service Commission, vide advertisement notice no. 5 of 1977 dated July 11, 1977, invited applications for certain posts including the post of one Agronomist in Agriculture Deptt. In pursuance of the said notification it is alleged that the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 applied for the post and the petitioner along with other candidates including respondents 3 and 4, was interviewed. However, as a result of the interviews held, the respondent no. 2 recommended the respondents 3 and 4 for appointment on the post of the Agronomist to the state Government, respondent No. 1. The respondent no. 1 on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission issued appointment orders noted hereinabove impugned in the present petition, respectively in the name of respondents 3 and 4 on November 28, 1977 and December 24,1977. The petition challenges their appointments and the orders issued by the respondent no. 1 on there commendation of respondent 4 mainly on the ground that the selected respondents do not hold the requisite experience of seven years as was prescribed in the advertisement notice and also prescribed under the J&K Agricultural Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules 1971 (for short hereinafter referred Rules). The State Govt. or the state Public Service Commission had no right to relax the essential requirement prescribed under the rules and moreover the interview which was held was not in accordance with the guidelines provided and thus violated the principles of equality as well as the provisions of the rules which is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.