HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. SWP no. 2466 OF 2001 Mehmood Akhtar Malik & Ors. Petitioners State and Ors. Respondent !Mrs. Surinder Kour, Advocate. ^Mr. S.K.Shukla, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. MR. JUSTICE J. P. SINGH, JUDGE. Date: 17/04/2009 :J U D G M E N T :
Services Selection Board, Srinagar/Jammu
had issued Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 1999
dated 09.03.1999 for Selection of candidates
against the Posts which included the posts of
Drivers in various Departments of the State
Government in their State/Divisional/District
Cadres except District Leh, prescribing Middle
Pass possessing Hill Road Driving Licence as
essential qualification for the posts.
Aggrieved by the Selection of the private
respondents as Drivers against Open and
Reserved categories, Mehmood Akhtar Malik,
2
Mohd. Parvez and Harpal Singh, the three
petitioners, have filed this petition seeking
quashing of the Select List published by the
Services Selection Board in Daily Excelsior on
26.09.2001, besides seeking a command against
the respondents to consider them for selection
and appointment against the posts.
The State and its Services Selection Board
have indicated in their response to the writ
petition that Mehmood Akhtar Malik, petitioner
No.1 and Harpal Singh, petitioner No.3 had
competed for the District Cadre Posts whereas
Mohd. Parvez, petitioner No.2 had competed for
the Divisional Cadre Post of Drivers.
Petitioner Nos. 1 is stated to have obtained
55.99 points in the Open Category, whereas the
last selected candidate in the Category in the
Rajouri District had obtained 65.66 points.
Petitioner No.3 competing for District Cadre Posts
in Jammu had obtained 58.66 points, whereas
the last selected candidate in the category had
obtained 67.99 points. As regards Mohd. Parvez,
3
petitioner No.2, the respondents say that having
applied for seeking consideration against the
posts of Drivers falling in the Divisional Cadre, he
could not question the selection of the
respondents made against District Cadre posts.
Disputing the stand taken by the official
respondents, petitioners learned counsel
submitted that petitioner No.2 had applied
seeking consideration against District Cadre Posts
and respondents had erred in refusing to consider
his case for selection against the posts.
In view of the merit position of the other
petitioners, the learned counsel was unable to
support rest of the petitioners case, in that being
less meritorious, they were not entitled to
selection for the advertised District Cadre posts.
During the course of consideration of the
petition, Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the
Board produced a photocopy of the Application
Form of petitioner No. 2 to indicate that the
submission made on behalf of the petitioner was
factually incorrect as he had not sought
4
consideration for selection against District Cadre
Posts and had in fact applied for seeking
consideration against State/Divisional Cadre
Posts. This photocopy of the Application Form
produced by Mr. Shukla is taken on records.
I have considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and perused the photocopy
of petitioner No.2s application seeking
appointment as Driver in Government Service.
Petitioner Nos. 1 & 3s plea that they were
meritorious and had been erroneously ignored
while issuing the list of candidates found selected
against the District Cadre Posts, is not supported
by any material on records.
Statement made by the official respondents in
their response to the writ petition supported by
the affidavit of the Administrative Officer of the
Board has not been controverted by the
petitioners either by placing any material on
records indicating position contrary to the one
affirmed by the respondents or by filing any
5
affidavit disputing the statement made by the
respondents in their reply to the writ petition.
Accordingly, in the absence of any material
on records indicating petitioner Nos.1 to 3 to be
superior in merit to the private respondents, the
Selection of the private respondents, who are
stated by the official respondents to have obtained
more marks than the petitioners, cannot be
faulted.
Perusal of petitioner No.2s application form
indicates that against Column No. 4 of the
application form requiring the candidates to
indicate the cadre for which they had applied,
petitioner No.2 had indicated his option for
seeking selection against State/Divisional Cadre.
It is thus apparent that petitioner No.2 had
not applied seeking consideration for selection
against the District Cadre Posts of Drivers and in
such view of the matter, he does not possess any
right to question the selection of the respondents
who had been selected against District Cadre
Posts.
6
For all what has been said above, there is no
merit in the petitioners writ petition, which is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(J. P. Singh)
Judge
JAMMU:
17.04.2009
Anil Raina, Secy