SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) " Posts of teachers for male and female were advertised by respondent No 5 by virtue of an advertisement notice No, E -2/98 -1086 dated 8.7. 1985. The post of teachers wore required to be filled in the District of Udhampur. It was provided that the applicants should not be more than 32 years and not less than 18 years of age on 1. 1. 1985. Upper -age -limit was however made relaxable in case of those in government service and the candidates representing schedule casts community by five years or two years respectively. The different categories of vacancies of the teachers were specified as under : -

(2.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid notification the petitioners 31 in number who claim to be possessing the minimum requisite qualifications and were other wise qualified to be selected, submitted their applications and participated in the interview conducted by the respondent no. 5 in the month of Nov. 5 1985. It is further submitted that the petitioners did not hear about the result of the interview or selection or appointment for a considerable period of more than 15 months. However on 6.3.1987 respondent No. 5 issued a selection list of male and female teachers selecting 292 candidates out of which 191 were male and 101 female. The selected candidates included respondents 7 to 109 in this petition as well. It is submitted that the selection of the respondents was illegal, unconstitutional and without the authority of law. The selection is alleged to have been made in contravention of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization of and Recruitment to Non -gazetted cadres) Rules 1969. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 5 was not at all competent, to conduct the interview1 under the aforesaid Rules of 1969 The selection is also alleged to be bad tin the ground that the District Recruitment Boards stood superseded by Jammu and Kashmir State Subordinate Service Recruitment Board vide SRO 249 of 1986 without making any provision for saving the selection of the candidates by the earst while Board. The interview held by respondent No. 5 is alleged to be a mere fraud and an eye wash. No question concerning or touching the intelligence and aptitude and general knowledge is alleged to have been asked by the said respondent from any of the petitioners and was confined only to the questions regarding the names parentage and place of residence. No attempt was made by the respondent No. 5 to test the merit and ability of the candidates. No criteria, yard -stick or standard or guidelines were provided fot the conduct of the interview. The selection is termed as fraud with oblique motives, alien purpose, extraneous consideration and actuated by political considerations. The selection is also alleged to be violative of Articles, 14,15 and 16 of the Constitution of India No care is alleged to have been taken for allocation of seats to the reserved categories as per the Rules and orders of the State Government. The petitioners who possess higher qualifications have been ignored. It isprayed that the selection and appointment of the respondents be quashed and the respondents 1 to 6 be restrained from enforcing or giving effect to the selection list.

(3.) AT the time of the admission of the writ petition, A Division Bench of this court vide its order dated 12.3.1987 directed that in pursuance of selection list made on 6. 3.1987 respondents 7 to 107 be not given effect,