JUDGMENT :

Moksha, J.

“It would be idle to expect every statutory provision to be drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity.”

Lord Denning

1. The Rule needs to be interpreted with its legal language and understanding of the intention of the Rule making authority. There can be many ambiguities, uncertainties, incompleteness in the words and Rule may reflect several meanings but it’s the responsibility of the Rule making authority to avoid such ambiguities and to give a clear and precise meaning, deriving clear attention of the Rule making authority, while exercising its power in decision-making process.

2. Petitioners are challenging and seeking quashment of the judgment and order dated 30.06.2022, hereinafter referred to as impugned judgment, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Srinagar Bench, hereinafter for short as Tribunal, whereby the OA filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

3. In order to appreciate the issue in its right perspective, a brief look at the events, as they happened, is desired, thus:

BRIEF MATRIX

4. An advertisement notification bearing No. 05 of 2020 dated 24th October, 2020, for filling up 34 posts of Draftsman (Civil), PWD (R&B) UT Cadre, was responded to besides others, by the petitioners offering their candidature for the post. In terms of the eligibility criterion, the candidate had to possess 2 years Draftsman Training Course Certificate/ Diploma in Civil Engineering from Govt. recognized Institute. The said advertisement was followed by a corrigendum dated 11.01.2021 whereby the eligibility criterion was modified and the word ‘Civil’ appearing in the earlier eligibility criteria was removed. The eligibility thus prescribed for the posts in question was modified as:

“2 years Draftsman training course certificate/diploma from any govt. recognized institute.”

5. It is stated in the writ petition that the respondents issued the result of the Computer Based Test (CBT) vide notification dated 20.12.2021, wherein the petitioners were shown to have respectively scored the points i) 96.948682386; ii) 97.461212976; iii) 97.531734838; iv) 99.930651872; v) 95.204513399; vi) 96.324549237; vii) 98.377997179; viii) 95.214979196; ix) 76.516220028; x) 99.435825106; xi) 89.181692094; xii) 97.919556172 and xiii) 99.167822469. Subsequent thereto the candidates figuring in the result notification were called for document verification in terms of notification dated 08.01.2022. As the petitioners had applied and participated in the selection process against more than one advertised post, therefore, the petitioners were asked to indicate their preferential choice of post.

6. Subsequently, a provisional select list came to be issued by the respondents for the post of Draftsman (Civil), PW(R&B) UT cadre in terms of notification No. SSB/Secy/Sel/2022/1623-32 dated 23.02.2022 and Draftsman (Civil) Jal Shakti Kashmir Division and Jammu Division in terms of Notification No. SSB/Secy/Sel/2022/1635-44 dated 23.02.2022 to the exclusion of petitioners.

7. Aggrieved of their exclusion, the petitioners filed representations against the provisional select list seeking redrawing of the same. The said representations, however, came to be rejected by the respondents by an order dated 10.03.2022.

8. Feeling aggrieved of their non-selection and the rejection of their representations, the petitioners filed the OA No. 226/2022 before the Tribunal titled Wasim Shafi v. Public Works Department (R&B) and the Tribunal upon consideration of the matter directed the respondents not to operate the selection list issued on 19.03.2022 till next date of hearing vide order dated 30.03.2022. Similar relief was passed in another OA No. 483/2022 titled Risheb Sharma v. Public Works Department (R&B) in terms of order dated 19.05.2022.

9. The Tribunal, however, after hearing both the parties and considering the material placed before it, dismissed the OA No. 226/2022 in terms of the impugned judgment. Relevant portion of the order is taken note