RUQAYA JABEEN Vs. STATE OF J AND K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
STATE OF J AND K
Click here to view full judgement.
MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. -
(1.) IT appears that advertisement notice No. 4 dated 19.04.1990 came to be issued by respondent No. 2 -J&K; State Subordinate Service Recruitment Board, inviting applications for the post of teachers in terms of annexure -P1. Petitioners participated in selection process but were not selected -appointed which constrained the petitioner to file writ petition in the year 1993.
(2.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner is that Government vide order bearing No. 325/Edu of 1985 dated 16.07.1985 accorded sanction to reserve 3% posts of teachers in each District for Instructors of Non -Formal Education -P5 and petitioners were eligible in terms of the said Government order for appointment but were not appointed. The selection was made after two years. The private respondents who came to be appointed in the category of Instructors of Non -Formal Education were not eligible. No preferential right could be claimed by any person on the basis of seniority in terms of the said Government order. Respondents have also not acted in terms of the Government order, thereby deprived the petitioners from their legitimate rights. They have also challenged the method of selection and the way interview was conducted. The selection was made after two years from the date of advertisement. Petitioners have prayed that selection of respondents 6 to 9 be quashed and petitioners be appointed.
Official respondents have resisted the petition on the grounds that selection process was conducted in terms of the Recruitment Rules of 1979 and selection and appointment came to be made in accordance with the merit and rules governing the field. All the meritorious candidates stand appointed against the direct recruitment posts and all the instructors who were eligible in terms of Government order No. 325/Edu of 1985, referred hereinabove, competed in the selection process and posts reserved for Adult Education came to be filled up as per the merit. The petitioners could not qualify and cannot now make a U -turn by pleading that the selection process was bad and was not conducted in terms of the rules applicable because of the fact that petitioners have participated in the selection process. Further, they have stated that the criteria laid down for filling up the posts of teachers in terms of the advertise -merit notice came to be challenged before this Court and Division Bench of this Court upheld the same. Further, respondents have stated that respondents 6 to 9 were eligible.
(3.) PETITIONERS competed in the selection process and could not be selected. They could not challenge the selection process after participating in the selection process. Once they participated in the selection process, they could not thereafter challenge the process on the ground that selection was not made in accordance with the rules and interview was conducted in a huff. They are estopped from challenging the selection process on that count.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.