HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) PROCESS of selection relating to contractual appointments initiated by the Deputy Commissioner Doda vide advertisement notice
No.1124 -62/ARA/2003 dated 04.08.2003, inter alia, for the posts/vacancies
of Junior Engineers in Civil/Mechanical in district Doda, came to be
clinched by a recommendation made to the Government, followed by an order
of appointment vide Government Order No. 169 -PW of 2003 dated 24.09.2003.
It is the said order which is sought to be set at naught by the
petitioners mainly on the ground that the appointment is de hors the
rules. To bring home the point reliance is placed on Note: 3 of Schedule
II -A appended to the rules called the Jammu & Kashmir Engineering
(Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1995 notified vide SRO 180
extracted hereunder for facility of reference.
"Note 3. The appointment of Junior Engineer to Grade -II shall be made in the ratio 1: 3 between degree and diploma holders respectively."
Suffice it to say that the argument has been advanced simply to be rejected in view of the fact that above referred note stands scrapped from the statute by a judicial decision of this Court in H. S. Sahni Vs. State of J&K (KLJ 2000 para 17 page 567 and para 39 page 583). Otherwise also the argument does not attract any credence in the face of the proviso contained in SRO 255 itself, which reads:
"Provided that there shall be no ratio system between degree and diploma holders while making appointment for engineering service."
The grammatical construction of the proviso makes it crystal clear that ratio system between degree and diploma holders for determination of the number of vacancies within the quota of degree and diploma holders is absolutely inapplicable.
(2.) NEXT is the challenge thrown to the criteria of weightage. Dealing with the contention it is averred by the Respondent -State in its
reply supported by an affidavit that the petitioners and the
selectee -respondents have been treated alike. The stand has not been
countered. Thus it emerges that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners.
(3.) THIS brings me to the contention that SRO 255 will have no application to the appointments in question because of the fact that
advertisement notice was issued on 04.08.2003 whereas SRO 255 was
notified on 05.08.2003. In essence the contention of the learned counsel
is that SRO 255 cannot be applied retrospectively. The contention needs
to be appreciated in the light of the guidelines issued by the Government
for contractual appointments vide Order No. GAD(Adm)186/2003 -V dated
30.07.2003. A perusal whereof reveals that essentially the guidelines have prescribed the eligibility and has brought into being a Selection
Committee. How to make the appointments guideline (6) assumes
significance, which reads:
"Appointment shall be made by the appointing authority to be intimated separately and shall be governed by the rules to be notified separately."
A plain reading of the guideline makes it clear that the appointments had to be made as per the rules to be intimated separately, accordingly rules were made public on 5th of August 2003 vide SRO 255. Apart from that indisputably the process of appointment was at its very inception when the SRO 255 was notified as is evident from the fact that advertisement notice was issued on 4th of August, 2003 and SRO was issued the next day only, obviously, the appointing authority had no option but to adhere to SRO 255. More so, to make the SRO consistent with the object sought to be achieved it has to be read along with guideline (6) and a conjoint reading thereof makes it manifestly clear that contractual appointments had to be made under SRO 255 notwithstanding its issuance a day later to the advertisement notice. Viewed thus contention is bereft of any logic.
It was also contended that the candidates having certificates from outside the State have been treated alike the petitioners but
particulars are wanting and there is no specific instance, not even worth
the name which leads to the conclusion that a bald assertion is made to
persuade the Court to show the door to the selectee -respondents. It is
also canvassed that Respondent No.19 had not produced the certificate and
Respondents 23 and 24 have not appeared in the interview. The averment is
refuted by the respondents. The rebuttal being supported by an affidavit,
I find no reason not to believe it. No other ground was urged.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.