HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU SWP No. 1324 of 2007 AND SWP No. 1253 of 2007 AND SWP No. 1934 of 2007 Mohd. Alam Petiotioner State of J&K & Ors. Respondent ! Mr. F.A.Natnoo, Advocate. ^ Mr. A.H.Qazi, AAG for R-1 & 2 with Mr. S.K.Shukla, Advocate for R-3. Mr. Karnail Singh, Advocate vice Mr. O.P.Thakur, Advocate for R-4 to 6. MR. JUSTICE J.P.SINGH, JUDGE Date : 26/12/2008 : J U D G M E N T :
Connected Case S W P No . 1694 of 2007
Modified Selection Criterion for selection, against the
posts of Patwaries advertised vide Notification No. 10 of
2005, notified in Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection
Board, Srinagar’s Notice No. 01 of 2007 dated 17.05.2007,
has been questioned in all these petitions.
Petitioners’ Grievance, in nut-shell, is that the
modified criterion adopted by the Jammu and Kashmir
Services Selection Board, hereinafter to be referred as the
‘Board’, pertaining to assessment of candidates’
knowledge of Urdu, at the time of interview, rather than
2
at the time of Short Listing, as notified earlier, is unfair,
irrational, besides being arbitrary, and is liable to be
quashed being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India.
Justifying the modified criterion, the Board says that
there was no substantial change in the two criteria i.e.
one notified earlier and the other notified vide notification
impugned in the writ petitions, in that, the Board had
only shifted testing of candidates’ knowledge of Urdu,
from the stage of Short Listing of candidates, to the stage
of interview, necessity wherefor had arisen in view of large
and highly disproportionate number of candidates against
the posts which had been advertised and the nonavailability
of indicators to prejudge the candidates’
knowledge of Urdu at the time of Short Listing. A
conscious decision had thus been taken to modify the
criterion by simultaneously providing for calling
candidates in the ratio of 1:10 instead of 1:5, thereby
broadening the area of competition to ensure that
sufficient number of candidates at least in the ratio of
1:5 possessing knowledge of Urdu remained available for
competition.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar.
In order to resolve the issue as to whether or not the
modified criterion is justified, regard needs to be had to
3
the criterion which had been fixed in terms of Notice No.
01 of 2007 and the one which had been notified prior
thereto. These two criteria are reproduced hereunder for
reference:-
“Earlier Notified Criterion:
(i) 10+2 = 10 points.
(ii) Knowledge of
Urdu through test = 20 points.
(iii) Graduation = 10 points.
(iv) Post Graduation = 10 points.
(v) Viva Voce = 20 points.
Revised Creterion:
(A) For short listing :
(i) 10 + 2 = 40 points.
(ii) Graduation = 10 points.
(iii) Post Graduation = 10 points.
(B) Criterion for selection :
(i) 10 + 2 = 40 points.
(ii) Graduation = 10 points.
(iii) Post Graduation = 10 points.
(iv) Knowledge of Urdu
to be tested at the time of
interview = 20 points.
(v) Viva Voce = 20 points.
The concluding paragraph of Notice No. 01 of 2007
too needs to be noticed. This reads thus:-
“Knowledge of Urdu being part of eligibility
criteria, if during the time of interview it is
found that the candidate does not have
knowledge of Urdu his candidature shall be
rejected out-rightly. The area of consideration is
increased for 1:5 to 1:10 as one time
exception.”
Perusal of the above extracted two criteria
demonstrates that all that the Board had done vide
notification impugned in these writ petition, was to Short
List the candidates on the basis of their academic
qualification ear-marking 40 points for 10 + 2, additional
10 points for Graduation and 10 points for Post
4
Graduation, meaning thereby that the Short Listing had to
be done by the Board on the basis of academic merit so as
to see that academically meritorious candidates alone are
considered for interview where their knowledge of Urdu
too had to be evaluated.
I do not find any irrationality, or for that matter
arbitrariness or unfairness, as urged by petitioners’
counsel, in the criterion the Board had adopted for Short
Listing candidates. This is so because what had been
intended by the Board was to select best available talent,
assessing their merit on the basis of educational
qualification. The criterion adopted for Short Listing of
candidates for the posts of Patwaries, does neither dilute
nor affect, in any manner whatsoever, assessment of merit
of candidates in so far as it pertained to acquisition of
other necessary qualification which a candidate must
possess for seeking selection for the post of Patwari i.e. his
knowledge of Urdu, in that, the Board had specifically
provided for, assessment of candidates knowledge of
Urdu, at the time of the interview, in the modified
criterion.
Petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Natnoo’s submission that
the Board had devised the criterion of evaluating
candidates knowledge of Urdu, at the time of interview
was a mere eye-wash, to select only blue-eyed persons,
5
gets knocked down with the statement which the learned
counsel for the Board had made at the Bar, on the basis
of the records maintained by the Board, that the Board
had while conducting interview, held both oral as well as
written test of candidates called for the interview, to
evaluate their merit regarding their knowledge of Urdu.
Board’s action of broadening the zone of competition
amongst candidates in calling candidates in the ratio of
1:10 as against earlier notified criterion of 1:5, too cannot
be said to affect petitioners’ right of consideration. This, on
the other hand, demonstrates fairness of the Selection
Authority in providing opportunity of competition to more
competitors i.e. double the number of candidates, who
would have been otherwise eligible to appear at the
interview had the earlier criterion remained unmodified.
For all what has been said above, I do not find any
vice of unconstitutionality, arbitrariness or unfairness in
the modified criterion notified vide Notice No. 01 of 2007
dated 17.05.2007.
Petitioners’ challenge to the Notice impugned in the
writ petitions, therefore, fails.
The Board’s action of Short Listing of candidates on
the basis of modified criterion, rejecting petitioners’ candidature
for the posts of Patwaries, therefore, does not
violate any enforceable right of the petitioners.
6
Lacking in substance, these writ petitions are
accordingly dismissed vacating the interim directions.
A copy of this judgment shall be placed on each file.
(J.P.Singh)
Judge
Jammu
26.12.2008
Pawan Chopra
