Decided on September 05,1986

Mahmooda Jan Appellant
STATE OF JANDK Respondents


- (1.) NINE petitioners were aggrieved of a selection list dated 26 -9 -198 whereby respondents 5 to 14 were selected and appointed as teachers in the department of Education and a writ of mandamus is also sought directing the department to appoint the petitioners as teachers.
(2.) DURING the pendency of this writ petition, three of the petitioners, namely Misra Bano, Ghulam Nabi Bhat and Mohd Akram Khan were subsequently selected and appointed as teachers Therefore petitioners 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 "alone are aggrieved now in this writ petition
(3.) IT is contended that in terms of advertisement notice dated 29 12 -1C80 applications were invited from the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir for posts mentioned in the annexure to the said notice. Eligibility requirement in the advertisement notice was that a candidate for being appointed as a teacher should not be more than 30 years and less than 18 years as on 1 -1 -1980. In the case of Government employees and some others upper age was liable to be relaxed. The qualification for being appointed as teacher was : i. Trained Post graduates and post -graduates ; ii. Trained graduates and trained under -graduates ; iii. Graduates iv. Matriculates with science ; and v. Matric and above from Uri and Gurez. However, the number of posts required to be filled was not given. 20% of the seats were reserved for those candidates who had undergone B. E. C training. This was provided by Government Circular No. 28 -GD (Adm) of 1978 dated 8 -7 -19/8. Selection was to be made in accordance with the said circular which was circulated among the District Recruitment Boards. Petitioners are said to have applied and interview was conducted from 25 -7 -1981 to 28 -7 -1981 both days inclusive. Respondent No. 3 is said to be the Chairman of the recruitment Board. Hundreds of candidates are said to have been interviewed during these days. Interview was conducted in a subjective manner because within a short span of period assessment of merit could not be made. On the basis of said interview respondents 5 to 14 and many others were appointed, petitioners were excluded from selection. Petitioners challenge the selection of the selected candidates and their exclusion from the selection on number of grounds. It is stated that petitioners 1, 2, 3 and 4 have completed B. E C training and therefore they were to be selected against 20% posts which were reserved for B. E. C candidates by the Government under its circular which is annexure -III to the petition. Petitioner No. 5 was a post graduate who held M. A. Degree in Education and at the time of filing of the writ petition he is said to have completed degree of B. Ed. also. Petitioner No. 6 was B. Ed. at the time of interview, petitioner No. 7 possesses the degree of B. A. and B. Ed. and petitioners 8&9 were graduates. However, we are not concerned now in this writ petition with the case of petitioners 3, 8 and 9 as they stood absorbed during the pendency of the writ petition as teachers. Comparative merit of the respondents ; to 14 is also given which is inferior to the petitioners. The remaining petitioners who are not selected state that they have been arbitrarily excluded from the selection and have not been considered for appointment for reasons which are not known to them and which are violative of their rights as guaranteed by Art 14 to 16 of the Constitution. The selection and interview of the candidates is said to be farce and deceptive. It was whimsical, capricious and conducted in such a manner as to give benefit to a chosen few. The selection is said to be arbitrary, discriminatory and prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners. Recruitment Rules provide that Heads of Departments should project vacancies in their departments, then the selection is to be concluded by the end of March and September each year and appointments to these posts would be made without delay. Delay in marking the appointments is said to be bad. Selection is to be concluded after holding test/examination as may be prescribed under rules. The method of selection is to be objective and based on certain criteria, but in (he present case the test was neither objective nor based on any reasonable criteria. Recruitment was made on the basis of favoritism.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.