2004 Supreme(J&K) 98
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Permod Kohli, J.
Darshan Singh & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K, Through Chief Secretary & Ors. - Respondent
SWP No. 2938/2002
Decided On : 08 April, 2004
Advocate For Appellant: D.S. Chouhan
Advocate For Respondent: Neeru Goswami
The waiting list provision in the J&K State Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992, allows for the operation of the waiting list in the event of vacancies due to non-joining of candidates, and eligible candidates in the waiting list have the right to be considered for appointment against the available vacancies.
Headnote:
J&K Service Selection Board - Appointment against Waiting List - J&K State Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992 - Rule 10 - Waiting list provision - Operation of waiting list - Availability of vacancies due to non-joining of candidates - Right to seek appointment from waiting list
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, eligible candidates, were placed in the waiting list for the posts of teachers in District Kathua. Several candidates from the select list did not join the service, creating vacancies. The petitioners, next in order of merit in the waiting list, claimed entitlement to appointment against the available vacancies. The respondents admitted the factual position and the petitioners' position in the waiting list.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the waiting list provision under Rule 10 of the J&K State Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992, allowed for the operation of the waiting list in the event of vacancies due to non-joining of candidates. The court held that the petitioners had the right to be considered for appointment against the available vacancies and directed the respondent-State to do so within three months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners had the right to seek appointment from the waiting list against unfilled vacancies due to non-joining of candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the waiting list provision in Rule 10 of the J&K State Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992, and emphasized that the waiting list should be operated upon in the event of vacancies due to non-joining of candidates. The court also highlighted the respondents' obligation to consider the petitioners for appointment against the available vacancies.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and a direction was issued to the respondent-State to consider the petitioners for appointment against the available vacancies due to non-joining of candidates within three months.
2. The State-respondent has filed detailed objections. Respondents in Para-F of the reply, admitted that eight candidates in Open Merit Category did not join. In grounds, it is further admitted that three more candidates who were appointed, also did not join. In Para-J also, it is admitted that two candidates after joining, resigned pursuant to their appointment as Accounts Assistants in the Finance Department. The respondents have also admitted that the petitioners are in the waiting list at Serial Nos. 9, 10 and 11 i.e. immediately after eight persons who have been appointed from the waiting list.
3. In view of the above admitted factual position, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioners have any right to seek appointment being in the waiting list against unfilled vacancies. The selection to the post in question is governed and regulated by the J&K State Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992. Sub-rule (vi) of rule 10 of the aforesaid rules was amended in the year 1998 and following was introduced:
"The Board shall also finalise waiting list of 20% of the total number of selected candidates and forward the same to the concerned department. The waiting list shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date of its receipt or till a fresh selection is drawn up by the Recruitment Board, whichever is earlier."
4. The aforesaid rule clearly envisage that a waiting list to be operated upon within a period of one year or till the next selection whichever is earlier. Indisputedly, 11 candidates did not join after being selected/ appointed and two resigned after joining. As far the vacancies that became available on resi