RAJ KUMAR KAUL Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Raj Kumar Kaul
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) SELECTION of respondents No.4 and 5 for the post of Junior Opthalmic Assistants made by the J&K Services Selection Board and notified vide
select list dated 19 -1 -1996 has been challenged in the present petition.
Petitioner and private respondents were candidates for selection to the
post of Junior Opthalmic Assistants for which applications were invited
vide Advertisement Notice No. 5 of 1995 dated 5 -6 -1995. Two posts were
notified for Open category, whereas one for RBA category. The
qualification as prescribed in the notification was Matric with diploma
in Junior Opthalmic Assistant Training from SFM or any other recognized
institute. Posts were available in District Anantnag. After receiving the
applications, the selection committee was constituted for interview.
Respondents No.4 & 5 who hail from District Anantnag were interviewed in
Valley by the Committee comprising of (i) Smt Sudhna Hafiz, convener;
(ii) Chief Medical Officer, Member and (iii) District Employment Officer
concerned, Member. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was
interviewed at Jammu. It is alleged that interviews were fixed on
6 -11 -1995. However, due to non -availability of expert same were postponed and the interviews were conducted on 8 -11 -1995. Challenge to the
selection is made by the petitioner on the following grounds: -
(i) That the petitioners interview was conducted without an expert
and therefore, he has been assessed by a Selection committee without any
expert. It is alleged that two different selection committees have
conducted the interviews which caused prejudice to the petitioner.
(ii) he third vacancy meant for RBA category has not been filled
up due to non -availability of candidate from the said category,.
According to the petitioner under Rule 15 (4) SRO 126 of 1994 the vacancy
was required to be filled up from open category.
(iii) The criterion fixed for the selection has not been applied.
The selection was to be based by taking into account the merit in Matric
as also the Diploma in Opthalmic Assistant, the basic qualification
notified whereas the selection has been made by only taking into
consideration the merit in Diploma (Technical Qualification) and not the
Matric which was one of the basic qualification as notified in
(2.) THE respondent Board contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to secure the merit over and
above the private respondent in the process of selection. It is disclosed
that the petitioner secured 54.91 points whereas respondents No.4 & 5
secured 55.20 and 56.60 points. The merit of the petitioner being less he
could not be selected. Regarding the association of expert, it is
specifically mentioned that Dr. M.P. Gupta, Dy Director (State Malaria
Officer) was co -opted as expert Member as Dr Mohd Hussain could not be
present on the date when the petitioner was interviewed.
(3.) THIS petition was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 17 -8 -1999. However, in the appeal preferred being LPA (SW) No. 18/2000 the judgment of this Court was set aside and the case remanded to the
writ Court, for deciding afresh after giving an opportunity to the
private respondents who were the appellants before the appellate Court.
Respondents No.4 and 5 appeared through Mr. M.A. Bhat, Advocate. However, on 16 -11 -2005 Mr. Bhat reported that despite communication made
by him these respondents have not responded and he is not able to file
the reply as directed by Honble Division Bench. After the remand the
State respondents did not file the counter. The matter was accordingly
heard, on the basis of available pleadings.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.