ORDER (ORAL)

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:

A notification was issued on 30.12.2016 by the Jammu &

Kashmir Police Recruitment Board, proposing to select Sub Inspectors in the Executive as well as Armed wings of the Police. The applicants and quite large number of others responded to the notification. A written test was conducted, followed by Physical Endurance Test (PET). The candidates within the range of selection were also interviewed and the result of the selection was declared on 30.12.2018. The applicants were not among the successful candidates. They filed SWP No. 117/2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, in this behalf. According to them, the recruitment ought to have taken place in accordance with the Jammu & Kashmir Special Recruitment Rules, 2015, issued through SRO No. 202/2015 dated 30.06.2015.

2. The applicants contend that Rule 6 thereof provides for constitution of the selection Committee comprising of Chairman or a Member of the Services Selection Board, to be nominated by the Chairman as Convenor, the District Head of the Indenting Office or Department as Member, one officer of or above the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government as another Member for the Non-Gazetted post and, in the instant case, the Board was constituted, vide proceedings dated 28.05.2016, in total deviation of the rules. They submit that the ADGP and the MD of Police Housing Corporation was made Chairman of the Committee and the members were also from the Police department, and that no official was drawn from the Civil Services. With these and other contentions, the applicants prayed for Writ of certiorari, to quash the advertisement dated 30.12.2016, and the final select list dated 13.12.2018, whereby the private respondents, numbering about 673, were selected.

3. The official respondents filed a detailed reply. According to them, the selection was made strictly in accordance with the SRO No. 202/2015. Reliance is also placed upon the Rule 172 of J&K Police Manual that empower the DGP to constitute the selection Boards. An objection is also raised as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition, on the ground that once the applicants have responded to the advertisement and participated in the selection process, it is not open for them to challenge the advertisement as well as the method of selection.

4. The SWP has since been transferred to the Tribunal in view of the reorganization of the State of Jammu & Kashmir and renumbered as TA No. 4344/2020.

5. We heard Mr. Vipan Gandotra, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Amit Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General for the official Respondents.

6. The prayer in the Writ Petition was, to quash the advertisement as well as the list of selected candidates published on 13.12.2018. More than 600 candidates were selected for both the wings. Two aspects become important. The first is about the maintainability of the Writ Petition and thereby TA, and the second is about the merits of the plea.

7. The advertisement was issued by the Police headquarters of J&K, in the name of Director General of Police. It indicated the number of posts and the Board selection process. 482 posts of Sub-Inspector (Executive) and 176 posts of Sub-Inspector (Armed) were notified. The educational qualifications and physical standards are mentioned. The applicants responded to the notification and took part at the level of selection. It is only when they were not successful in the selection process, they filed the Writ Petition.

8. It is fairly well settled that the candidates, who responded to an advertisement and took part in the selection for the public post, cannot turn around and challenge the selection process. References in this context can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal & Others v. the State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others (AIR 1995 SC 1088), and another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Others

(AIR 1986 SC 1043).

9. The