Judicial review requires substantiation of claims against selection processes; mere allegations are insufficient to overturn decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J

1. The appellants, five in number (05), are in appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Patent against an order and judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [‘the Writ Court’] in SWP No. 1434/2009 titled ‘Sajjad Ahmed Sohil and another vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and others. Although, the Writ Court has allowed the petition of the appellants and issued some directions, yet the appellants are not satisfied and have filed this appeal seeking the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition.

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that pursuant to an Advertisement Notification issued by the Director General of Police, J&K for filling up the posts of Constables in IRP for the Districts of Doda, Kishtwar, and Ramban, the appellants, along with thousand others, submitted their application forms. The appellants restricted their applications to the posts of Constables reserved for District Ramban. They participated in the selection process, which comprised of outdoor tests, but did not find their names in the final select list issued by the respondents.

3. Feeling aggrieved the appellants, along with a few others, filed SWP No. 1434/2009 challenging the selection of respondents No. 4 to 81 (the private respondents) on various grounds and prayed for quashing of the entire select list of candidates prepared for the posts of Constable under the RBA category for District Ramban. The appellants also prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider them for appointment against the posts of Constable. The challenge to the select list was mounted primarily on the ground that some of the candidates, like respondents No. 15, 53 and 65, were given more marks than they actually deserved as per the selection criteria fixed by the Selection Committee. The appellants have found fault with the manner in which the height of respondents No. 15, 53, and 65, was measured to the benefit of aforesaid candidates. The appellant No.5, along with Sajjad Ahmed Sohil, whose name has already been struck off from the array of the appellants, also claimed benefit of two additional points for possessing the additional qualification. The writ petition was contested by the official respondents .

4. The Writ Court, having considered the case projected by the appellants and the reply submitted thereto by the official respondents, came to the conclusion that the height of the appellants was required to be measured afresh and that the additional qualification possessed by Sajjad Ahmed Sohil who was the petitioner No.1 in the writ petition, was also required to be taken into account for awarding additional marks. The Writ Court, thus, disposed of the petition vide impugned order and judgment dated 08.03.2017 with the following directions:

“(i) That the respondents shall get the height of the petitioners measured by District Medical Board and shall award them proper marks on account of their height as per the selection criteria;

(ii) The respondents shall take into account the additional qualification of petitioner No.1 and shall award him appropriate marks for the additional qualification; and,

(iii) in case it is found that the petitioners have secured more marks than the last selected candidate in their respective categories, appropriate action for their appointment shall be taken within a period of one month from today.

5. It is this order and judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed in SWP No1434/2009 which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the Writ Court is legally perfect and unquestionable on any count, particularly on the grounds urged before us by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

7. The only grievance that was projected before the Writ Court to throw challenge to the selection of respondents 15, 53 and 65 was that their hei