Back
2016 Supreme(J&K) 547
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, Bansi Lal Bhat, JJ.
Aamir Zeeshan – Appellant
Versus
State of J & K - Respondent
LPASW No. 9 of 2016, MP No. 1 of 2016 & Caveat No. 395 of 2016
Decided On : 15-02-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. M.R. Qureshi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ravinder K. Gupta, AAG & Mr. M.I. Sherkhan, Advocates
The court clarified that if a corrigendum extends the cut-off date for qualification, candidates who were not qualified on the initial appointment date may not be entitled to the appointment.
Headnote:
Caveat - Selection and Appointment - The court considered whether a corrigendum extended the cut-off date for qualification and concluded that the appellant, who was not qualified on the initial cut-off date, was not entitled to the appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 in a teaching position, claiming eligibility based on a corrigendum that extended the qualification cut-off date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was not qualified on the initial appointment date and upheld the judgment of the learned Single judge, dismissing the appeal.
Issues: The key issue was whether the corrigendum extended the cut-off date for qualification and whether the appellant was entitled to the appointment based on the extended date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered conflicting judgments from other high courts regarding the extension of the cut-off date and concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the appointment based on the corrigendum.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the judgment of the learned Single judge.
Caveat No. 395 of 2016 - Caveat shall stand discharged.
LPASW No. 9 of 2016 - This appeal is filed against the order made in SWP No. 2425/2010 dated 01.02.2016 which was filed by the appellant challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 in the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem in Middle School Chowki Sagra of Zone Mankote. The said writ petition was dismissed by the writ Court stating therein that any qualification or eligibility acquired after the cut of date will not be considered at all.
2. The case of the appellant is that as per the advertisement notice, two vacancies of ReT having Science and Math Stream were notified. The appellant applied being 10+2 with Science, but in the meanwhile a corrigendum was issued on 07.08.2009. In light of the above said corrigendum, the appellant became eligible to apply for Math stream. It is further contended that the Zonal Education Officer, Mankote prepared the panel of merit list for both the streams i.e. Math and Science and submitted the same to Director School Education, Jammu. The Director School Education granted the approval for engaging the appellant as RET teacher in Math stream on contractual basis. Respondent No. 5 challenged the selection/approval and filed SWP No. 145/2010, which was dismissed.
3. The appellant who did not possess the qualification on the cut off date was selected and the said selection was challenged by respondent No. 5 in writ petition bearing SWP No 145/2010 and the interim stay was also granted.
4. During the pendency of the said writ petition (SWP No. 145/2010) the department reconsidered the issue and rectified the mistake on noticing the fact that the appellant who was selected possessed the qualification after the date of initial notification dated 18.04.2009 cancelled the selection and appointed respondent No. 5.
5. The issue arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the corrigendum actively extended the cut off date as well as the date on which the candidates possess the qualification or not.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2009(1) SLR 327 wherein it is held that if the corrigendum is issued and further time is granted to the candidates who have not applied earlier, the last date to acquire the qualification will automatically extended. Therefore, the order of the writ court is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand relied upon the Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court made in W.P(C) No. 834/2003 dated 13.05.2013 wherein it has been held that if other conditions of the notification are retained in the corrigendum, the cut off date to acquire the qualification cannot be extended.
8. Admittedly the appellant was not qualified on the date of initial appointment therefore we do not find any reason to interfere the judgment of learned Single judge which is in accordance with the reasonable interpretation. No merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
