Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR/JAMMU
SANJAY DHAR, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Zahid Snober and another - Appellants
Versus
State of J&K and others - Respondents
LPASW No. 199, 200 of 2017, IA No. 01 of 2017, CM No. 3486 of 2021 c/w (Srinagar Wing), LPA No. 176, 161, 169, 171 OF 2018 c/w APSWP No. 19 of 2016, SWP No.2608 of 2015, 577 of 2016, 1103, 1993 of 2017, SWP No. 1876, 1980, 2069 of 2018 (Jammu wing)
Decided on : 28-01-2022
Jammu and Kashmir Revenue (Sub-ordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1973 - Posts of Naib-Tehsildars - Experts Committee - Implemented in terms of Government Order - Category of “Executive Posts” - Selection process - Select list - Challenged - Whether a judgment is in personam, can be gathered from its language - J&K Service Selection Board (‘Board’) issued three separate Advertisement Notices inviting applications for a total of 111 posts of Naib-Tehsildars. The selection process culminated in making recommendation by Board in favour of selected candidates, who were appointed to posts of Naib-Tehsildars. The process came to be completed in year 2009-10 - Petitioners therein that a good number of questions in question-booklet, candidates were required to answer either wrong/vague questions with more than one correct options or incorrect answers - Petitioners in aforesaid writ petition immediately, after conduct of written test when selection process was yet to be finalized, filed the said writ petition challenging the written test and selection process itself. An alternative prayer seeking a direction upon Board to add marks for questions identified by petitioners therein to their score and to conduct their interview was also sought. During pendency of said writ petition, a provisional select list was issued by Board which was also challenged by the petitioners after making appropriate amendment to their writ petition.
Finding of the Court ;
The judgment in Hamidullah Dar’s case is a clear example of a judgment in personam as it does not touch upon any policy matter. This is clear from fact that in para (32) of aforesaid judgment, direction for appointment is confined only to petitioners. Further direction for redrawing of merit is confined to petitioners and selected candidates only. It does not extend to whole of merit list - A bare perusal of above entry shows that it specifically mentions that in the case of Naib-Tehsildars, minimum prescribed qualification shall be Graduate having passed Matric in Urdu as one of the subjects. The learned counsels, appearing for selected candidates/appellants while interpreting aforesaid SRO, it appears to us, are misreading same. Court opinion, there is no ambiguity in the language of the aforequoted rule. Our aforesaid opinion gets strengthened from fact that in cases of these selected candidates/ appellants relaxation in their qualification has been granted by the Government, which clearly shows that they were not eligible as per Rules in vogue, as they did not possess the requisite qualification i.e., Graduate having passed Matric in Urdu as one of subjects - Writ petitioners have been vigilant and alive to their rights, and they have not allowed their claims to go stale. Therefore, their cases cannot be equated with cases of other writ petitioners who chose to approach Court only after knowing the result of cases of Hamidullah Dar and Inamul Haq Hajjam - Directions made by writ Court to extent of placing writ petitioners over and above 29 selected candidates (appellants herein) in seniority list as well as directions regarding quashment of their appointments and consequent stoppage of their salaries etc., are set aside.
Result : Intra-Court Appeals and Writ Petitions disposed of
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Dhar, J.
1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the following cases:
(ii) Intra-Court appeals bearing LPA Nos. 176/2018, 166/2018, 169/2018 & 171/2018 against the judgment and order dated 18.08.2018 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No. 360/2017 of Jammu Wing of the Court, and
(iii) Writ petitions bearing SWP Nos. 2680/2015, 577/2016, 1103/2017, 1993/2017, 1876/2018, 1980/2018, 2669/2018 & APSWP No. 19/2016 of Jammu Wing of the Court.
(A) Background facts:
2. The J&K Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) issued three separate Advertisement Notices on 16.04.2002, 04.05.2005 & 26.05.2008 inviting applications for a total of 111 posts of Naib-Tehsildars. The selection process culminated in making recommendation by the Board in favour of selected candidates, who were appointed to the posts of Naib-Tehsildars. The process came to be completed in the year 2009-10.
3. Initially, two sets of writ petitions came to be filed by some of the candidates who had responded to the aforesaid Advertisement Notices. In the first set of writ petition bearing SWP No. 487/2009 titled Hamidullah Dar and ors vs. Mohd Afzal Bhat and ors, a contention was raised by the petitioners therein that a good number of questions in the question-booklet, the candidates were required to answer either wrong/vague questions with more than one correct options or incorrect answers. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition immediately, after conduct of the written test when the selection process was yet to be finalized, filed the said writ petition challenging the written test and the selection process itself. An alternative prayer seeking a direction upon the Board to add marks for questions identified by the petitioners therein to their score and to conduct their interview was also sought. During the pendency of the said writ petition, a provisional select list was issued by the Board which was also challenged by the petitioners after making appropriate amendment to their writ petition. The Writ Court, after impleading the selected candidates as respondents to the writ petition, kept their appointments subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
4. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, an Experts Committee comprising of Professors/Heads of Departments of Political Science, Geography, Economics, Environmental Science and History was constituted by the Court to examine the questions identified by the petitioners in the writ petition, which according to them, were wrong/vague. The Experts Committee declared that 23 questions, out of 25 questions referred to the Committee, were vague/wrong with multiple correct answers or the answers given in the key were not the correct answers. The question-booklet comprised of 120 questions, out of which 23 questions were declared as wrong/vague. After taking note of the findings of the Experts Committee, the Writ Court passed the following directions:
(i) The respondent Board shall delete 23 questions i.e questions 3, 9, 31, 32, 35, 42, 47, 52, 64, 72, 71, 72, 80, 83, 84, 95, 105, 107, 109, 111, 133 & 115 from the question paper and thereafter assess and evaluate performance of petitioners in SWP No. 487/2009 and the selected (now appointed) candidates-respondents 4 to 110, as if the question paper comprised of 97 questions only. The respondent Board thereafter shall prepare category wise merit list, redraw the select list and recommend the candidates on the basis of merit for appointment as Naib-Tehsildars accordingly. The exercise shall be completed within fou
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
