KHALID TANVEER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J &K Service Selection Board Jammu by its Notification No.03 of 2004 dated 14.9.2004 has invited applications in the prescribed format from the candidates who are permanent residents of the J&K State for filling up the vacancies indicated from S.No. l to 76 of the notice in the State/Division/District cadre. One of the categories of posts is Junior Engineer in the State Public Works Department. The qualification prescribed for the said post is Degree in Civil Engineering or AIME Sec. (A&B) India or Three years Diploma in civil engineering from a Government recognized institute. The applications as per the notice can be personally delivered in the office of the Selection Board up to 14.10.2004 and by post up to 21.10.2004 in the offices indicated in the notice. The petitioners are desirous of offering their candidature and in this behalf intend to apply in response to the advertisement notice. Their grievance is that their applications are not being entertained by the respondent -Board.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they have appeared in the final examination of their engineering courses but their result has not yet been declared by the University. Same according to them is likely to be declared in the month of November 2004. They submit that they be permitted to apply subject to their clearance of the examination successfully.

(3.) IN order to determine the controversy the vital question arising for consideration is that which is the crucial date on which an applicant has to establish his eligibility for offering his candidature. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Chohan, submits that if an applicant possesses and establishes his eligibility on the date of interview, his application has to be entertained. In support of his submission he relies upon, Ashok Kumar Sharma vs Chander Shekhar, 1993(2) Service Cases Today 208. In this case the question which had arisen for consideration before the Supreme court was whether or not the candidates who were fully qualified to be appointed as Junior Engineers on the dates of interview, but whose results had not been declared on the dates of submission of their applications, were entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer. The facts of the case were that advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer was published on 9.6.1982. The last date for submitting applications was specifically stated to be 15.7.1982. By that date the appellants and the respondents had submitted their applications, the appellants had appeared in BE (Civil) examination and had been awaiting their results until the results were published on 21.8.1982.Interviews were held on various dates commencing on 24.8.1982. The appellants were declared selected on 21.4.1983 and appointed as Junior Engineers. By reason of their merits, they were placed senior to the respondents. The respondents contended in the High Court that since the appellants were not qualified to apply for the post on the date of submission of applications as their results had not been declared until after that date, they were not qualified to appear for interview and the marks obtained by them were invalid and their applications ought to have been rejected, the announcement of the results prior to the interview and their obtaining higher marks, notwithstanding. On behalf of the appellants it was submitted that Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Business Rules provide that applications of candidates who have appeared in the examination, passing of which may make them eligible for appearing in the interview for recruitment to a post to be made otherwise than by a competitive examination, but result whereof have not been declared up to the date of making of the applications, may be entertained provisionally but no such candidate shall be permitted to take the interview if he is declared having failed in the examination or if the results are not available on the date of viva voce test is held. So on the analogy of Rule 37 applications of the appellants could be entertained subject to passing of the examination by them before the date of interview. The majority view expressed by their lordships of the Supreme Court was as follows: - The fact is that the appellants did pass the examination and were fully qualified for being selected prior to the date of interview. By allowing the appellants to sit for the interview and by their selection on the basis of their comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talents available. It was certainly in the public interest that the interview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus based on sound principle with reference to comparatively superior merits. It was in the public interest that better candidates who were fully qualified on the dates of selection were not rejected, notwithstanding that the results of the examination in which they had appeared had been delayed for no fault of theirs. The appellants were fully qualified on the dates of the interview and taking into account the generally followed principle of rule 37 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinion that the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the Division Bench was incorrect and the view expressed by the learned Single Judge was, on the facts of this case, the correct view. 