Point of Law : Service Law - Appointment of Sub Inspectors - Selection Process - There is no provision in Rules of 2015 to even remotely suggest that method of recruitment would even apply to those cases where any Statutory Rules provides for special method of recruitment.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. These intra-court appeals are directed against the judgment dated 9th of August, 2019, passed by the Writ Court in a batch of writ petitions with SWP No.3019/2018 being the lead case, whereby, while upholding the selection and appointment of Sub Inspectors in J&K Police made pursuant to advertisement notice dated 30th of December, 2016, the writ petitions filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners) have been dismissed.

2. Before coming to the grounds of challenge, it is necessary to give a brief background of the facts leading to filing of these intra-court appeals.

3. Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, in terms of advertisement notice No.Pers-A/400/2016/75303-403 dated 30.12.2016, invited applications for the posts of Sub Inspectors in Executive/Armed wings of the Jammu and Kashmir Police. It was provided in the advertisement notice that the conditions of employment as prescribed under J&K Special Recruitment Rules, 2015 [“Rules of 2015” for short hereinafter), notified vide SRO 202 dated 30.06.2015, shall be applicable.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement notice the writ petitioners responded to the same and they were subjected to physical test, physical endurance test and physical standard test. Upon qualifying the aforesaid tests, the writ petitioners appeared in the written examination (objective type), where-after some of the writ petitioners were shortlisted for interview. The final selection list was issued by the official respondents vide PHQ order No.6626 of 2018 dated 15th of December, 2019. The writ petitioners did not find their name in the aforesaid selection list and, as such, they filed a batch of writ petitions challenging the selection list as well as the consequent appointment orders issued in favour of the private respondents.

5. The writ petitioners challenged the impugned select list and appointment orders, primarily, on the grounds that the procedure and conditions prescribed in the advertisement notice, particularly those relating to use of biometric devices to eliminate duplication and impersonation and use of CCTV technology to videograph various stages of recruitment and also to track the activities at various recruitment centres, were not adhered to at a number of recruitment centres; that as per the advertisement notice, the selection of the candidates was to be undertaken in accordance with the Rules of 2015, but the official respondents went on to undertake the selection process in violation of the aforesaid rules, inasmuch as the selection was made by the Selection Committee constituted by the Home Department and not by the Service Selection Board; that majority of the selected candidates belong to Jammu Division and only a few candidates from Kashmir Division found their name in the select list and this raises suspicion about the fairness of the process.

6. The learned Writ Court did not find substance in any of the contentions raised by the writ petitioners in their writ petitions and the same were dismissed primarily on the ground that the writ petitioners having participated in the selection process but failing to make the grade for their selection, cannot be allowed to turn around and raise a grievance against the procedure adopted by the official respondents. Thus, the writ petitions were held to be not maintainable on the ground of estoppel.

7. Aggrieved by the common judgment of the Writ Court, the instant intra-court appeals came to be filed by the writ petitioners challenging the impugned judgment passed by the Writ Court, mainly, on the following grounds:

(I) That the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application in a case where the Government has committed glaring illegalities in the procedure relating to selection of candidates;

(II) That in the instant case, selection of candidates was required to be undertaken in terms of the Rules of 2015, as was clear from the advertisement notice but inst