Back
2006 Supreme(J&K) 265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT Jammu
Nirmal Singh, J.
Sanjeev Puri - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondent
SWP No. 1053/2003
Decided On : 10 November, 2006
Advocate For Appellant: Ashok Parihar
Advocate For Respondent: Shaishta Hakim
Advocate For Respondent: D.C. Raina
Advocate For Respondent: Srishti Raj Bhagat (Dr.)
Advocate For Respondent: F.A. Natnoo
The Commission's recommendations must strictly adhere to the Recruitment Rules and Reservation Rules, and the selection list does not confer a substantial right to appointment if it violates statutory rules.
Headnote:
Recruitment Rules, 1970 - Appointment of B-Grade Specialists in Ophthalmology - Rule 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Medical (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1970 and Rule 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994 - The court discussed the violation of Recruitment Rules and Reservation Rules by the Commission in recommending a candidate from the Open/General Category against a post meant for Reserved Category without getting it de-reserved.
Fact of the Case:
The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission invited applications for B-Grade Specialists in Ophthalmology. The Commission recommended candidates for appointment, including the petitioner, against posts reserved for RBA and Scheduled Caste Categories due to non-availability of Category candidates. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking appointment and related benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commission's recommendations were beyond its jurisdiction and in violation of the Recruitment Rules, 1970 and SRO-126 of 1994. The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner's name was recommended in violation of the statutory rules.
Issues: Violation of Recruitment Rules and Reservation Rules by the Commission in recommending a candidate from the Open/General Category against a post meant for Reserved Category without getting it de-reserved.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission's recommendations must adhere to the Recruitment Rules and Reservation Rules, and the selection list does not confer a substantial right to appointment if it violates statutory rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner's name was recommended in violation of the statutory rules.
2. Twelve candidates appeared in the interview, which was conducted at Srinagar on 23rd and 24th of July, 2000. Therefore, on the basis of over all performance in the interview and the academic qualification, experience and other relevant factors, the following candidates in order of merit were found suitable for appointment as B-Grade Specialists in Ophthalmology:
OPEN CATEGORY:
1. Dr. Sunil Ji Mattoo
S/o Triloki Nath Mattoo
126 A/D, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
2. Dr. Sajjad Hamid Fazili
S/o Ab. Hamid Fazili
R/o 165 Rawalpora Housing Colony,
Post Office Sanatnagar, Srinagar.
SCHEDULED TRIBE CATEGORY:
1. Tsering Angchuk
S/o Tsering Rabjor
C/o Sm. Dechain A.C.O. Office
Leh-Ladakh.
3. No candidate was found available in the categories of RBA and Scheduled Caste. Due to the non-availability of the Reserved Category candidates, names of Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o D.K. Sharma and Dr. Sanjeev Puri S/o Chaman Lal Puri, who is the petitioner in the present case, were recommended by the Commission against the posts reserved for RBA and Scheduled Caste Categories.
4. On the recommendations of the Commission, Secretary to Government, Health and Medical Education, issued appointment orders to Dr. Sunil Ji Mattoo S/o Triloki Nath Mattoo, Dr. Sajjad Hamid Fazili S/o Ab. Hamid Fazili; and Tsering Angchuk S/o Tsering Rabjor, who were selected in the General/Open Category as well as in the Category of Scheduled Tribe.
5. The Department of Health, Family Welfare and Medical Education also wrote a letter to the Department of General Administration for giving approval that the petitioner may be given appointment against the Reserved Category post. The General Administration Department upheld the recommendations of the Commission and allowed the Health Department to go ahead and issue the appointment orders in favour of the selected candidates, including the petitioner, furnished by the Commission. However, in the meanwhile, selection list furnished by the Commission had elapsed, as such the Department of Health, Family Welfare and Medical Education was not able to issue the orders of appointment of the selected candidates. The Department of Health, Family Welfare and Medical Education had requested the Commission to furnish its view in the matter for proceeding further. The Commission vide its letter (Annexure-G) dated 21-01-2003, after considering the proposal of the Department of Health, Family Welfare and Medical Education, decided not to extend the validity of the selection list.
6. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution, with the following substantive prayers:
"I/A WRIT OF CERTIORARI and quash and set aside:-
(a) the communication bearing No.:PSC/DR/Paed/13/97 dated: 31-01-2003 issued by the respondent no: 2 to the address of the respondent no: 1 whereby it has conveyed the decision of the public Service Commission in not extending validity of the Select List bearing No: 8-PSC/B-Grade/Ophthalmology Dated: 16-08-2001 sent by it to the respondent no: 1 and under the petitioner on his selection has been recommended for his appointment as B-Grade Specialist in the Discipline of Ophthalmology; and also
(b) Declare Rule 57 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business & Procedure Rules, 1988, as ultra vires and quash and set aside the same; and also
II/A WRIT OF MANDAMUS and thereby command and direct the respondents 1 and 2:
a/ to treat
