HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Case: LPA No. 122/2020

Union Territory of J&K and others

.....Appellant (s)

Through :- Ms. Asifa Padro, AAG

v/s

Mumtaz Ahmad Baba

.....Respondent(s)

Through :- Mr. Noor Mohammad, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

ORDER

01.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and

order dated 18.02.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP

No. 2670/2017 titled 8Mumtaz Ahmad Baba vs. State of J&K and others9.

By virtue of the impugned order, the writ petition has been disposed of by

directing the appellants to evaluate the (Optical Mark Recognition) OMR

Answer sheet of the respondent and, in case, the respondent makes it to

the select list, he be declared selected and appointed against the available

post of Constable in District Cadre, Kupwara.

02.

The Director General of Police, J&K-Srinagar vide an

Advertisement Notice bearing No. Pers-A-38/2016/59220-320, dated

08.10.2016, invited applications from eligible permanent residents of the

erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir for recruitment as Constable in

IRP Battalions/Armed/Executive Police against the vacancies in the Pay

Band-I of Rs. 5200+20200 + Grade Pay 1900/-.

2

LPA No. 122 of 2020

03.

In response to the advertisement notice, the respondent along

with other eligible candidates applied for the post of Constable in District

Cadre Kupwara. After qualifying the Physical Standard Test (PST) and

Physical Endurance Test (PET), the respondent appeared in the Written

Examination conducted by the appellants. The candidature of the

respondent was disqualified by the appellants for the reason that he did

not fill up his Question Booklet number on the OMR Answer sheet

provided to him.

04.

The admitted case of the respondent was that he did not write

his Question Booklet number in the OMR Answer sheet and, resultantly,

his OMR Answer sheet could not be evaluated due to the deficiency

>Blank Booklet Number?. The contention of the respondent was that after

cross checking his answers, as per the Answer Key uploaded on the

website, as per his own evaluation he would have secured the requisite

merit for selection to the post of Constable. However, since his OMR

Answer sheet was not evaluated by the appellants, therefore, his merit

could not be assessed and, as such, he could not be selected for the said

post. In view of facts as narrated aforesaid, the respondent filed a writ

petition seeking direction to the appellants to quash his disqualification

notice and also sought a mandamus seeking evaluation of his OMR

Answer sheet and consequently his selection and appointment as

Constable on the basis of merit obtained by him.

05.

The appellants in their objections to the petition submitted that

they have undertaken the recruitment under Transparent Recruitment

Process which is a technology driven recruitment policy. In order to

3

LPA No. 122 of 2020

achieve total transparency in the recruitment process, the selection process

was carried on by Digital Mode with almost no human intervention,

therefore, in case, the candidate failed to indicate the Question Booklet

number or any other necessary requisite details, the OMR Answer sheet

could not be evaluated by the relevant answer key as per the electronic

evaluation. The respondent had failed to adhere to the mandatory

instructions as provided to him in Admit Card, as well as general

instructions to the candidates and, as such, was disqualified, therefore,

cannot seek evaluation of his result.

06.

The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by

holding that though no fault could be found with the decision of the

appellants to disqualify the respondent but taking a compassionate view of

the matter, directed the appellants to evaluate the OMR Answer sheet of