J&K: DB permits JKSSB's LPA: Dismiss the learned single judge's ruling in order to conduct a new interview
Jammu, November 3 In J&K Service Selection Board, through its Chairman vs. 1. Bharat Vijay & 34 ors, LPA No. 3/2019 CM No.705/2019[1/2019], after hearing a DB of HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ordered as follows:
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 22, 2016, rendered in SWP No. 1157/2008 by the learned Single Judge, who instructed the Chairman of the J&K Service Selection Board to conduct a new interview with the writ petitioner and then make a determination regarding the writ petitioner's selection.
The writ petitioner applied for the position of Draftsman Civil, Public Works Department, Division Kashmir, in response to an advertisement notice issued by the J&K Service Selection Board on July 3, 2007. These are the facts-in-brief obtained from the appeal file.
2.Thirty marks for the interview and seventy marks for qualifying made up the required selection criteria. Out of 70 points, the writ petitioner received 48.22 for qualification. The writ petitioner was not chosen from the 34 candidates that were chosen under the open merit category according to the choose list that was released on December 8, 2007.
In an effort to obtain access to the marks awarded to both the wait list candidates and the chosen candidates, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act. The writ petitioner filed SWP No. 320/2008, which was resolved on March 27, 2008, with a directive to J&K SSB to provide the requested information, following the writ respondents' failure to respond.
As a result, the J&K SSB provided information regarding 34 chosen applicants, revealing that whereas the writ petitioner received 5.67 marks out of 30 in the viva-voce, the selected candidates received marks between 19.33 and 29 marks. As a result, the writ petitioner filed SWP No.1157/2008 in an attempt to overturn the 08.12.2007 pick listrequesting the position of Division Cadre Kashmir's Draftsman Civil, as well as to designate the petitioner as such with all ensuing perks
3. The learned Single Judge issued the following decision in response to the writ petition, which was handled by judgment dated November 22, 2016, delivered in SWP No. 1157/2008:
Given the facts of the case, I believe it is appropriate to order respondent No. 3 to conduct a new interview with the petitioner, taking into consideration that the chosen candidates have received marks between 19.33 and 29. After that, I will decide whether or not to select the petitioner for the position in question. It goes without saying that, should the petitioner be determined to be eligible for selection to the In addition, he will be eligible for all ensuing rewards after the in question.
Please do the aforementioned exercise within four months of this day. It is made plain that this Court has not given a judgment on the case's merits.
4. The current appeal was filed on behalf of the J&K Service Selection Board against this knowledgeable Single Judge's ruling.
5. Heard knowledgeable attorneys representing each party, took into account their opposing arguments, and looked over the appeal file.
By order dated May 14, 2019, this Court ordered the J&K Service Selection Board to furnish the following affidavit information in order to fulfill the requirements of justice and have a more comprehensive understanding of the issues surrounding the writ petitioner and other candidates who were placed similarly.
1) The members of the Interview Committee, including their names and contact information.
2) The number of candidates who were chosen after the first 34, their placement in the total merit, and their interview scores, which ranged from 5 to 15.
3) Whether the committee was informed during the interview of the candidates' academic accomplishments and merits by the committee.
As a result, the affidavit was filed on September 18, 2019, and reading it discloses that more candidates were also considered but were not chosen despite receiving 48 or more points for meeting the minimum requirements.
One such applicant in the Open Merit category is Sanjay Kumar, who received 50 points for basic qualifications and 6 points for viva voce.
Similar to this, Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan in Open Merit received 11 points in viva voce and 52 points in basic qualification, but he was not chosen. Even though Sushma Dhar received 46.52 points for basic qualification and 12.33 points for viva voce in Open Merit, she was not chosen for the position in question.
Thus, in our judgment, it would be incorrect to claim that the The selection committee gave the writ petitioner a lower mark during the viva voce due to bias.
Furthermore, it would be discriminatory and unreasonable to allow the writ petitioner to have the only opportunity for a new interview, denying other candidates who received higher scores on the basic qualification. In addition, the pick list was released in December 2007; sixteen years will have passed by now, and the new members will undoubtedly have assumed control of the board.
Thus, it would not be appropriate to grant the writ petitioner another interview at this point in the proceedings.
Following the citation of several Apex Court rulings, DB declared, "Therefore, considering the preceding discussion, we believe it appropriate to grant the appeal. As a result, the learned Single Judge's decision is set and the appeal is granted put aside."
As a result, the writ petitioner's filed documents will be dismissed. Therefore, connected CM(s) is disposed away.
.jpg)
.png)
