Jammu and Kashmir High Court Reiterates that Rule-51 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 is Prospective In Nature

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

On 09-06-2020, the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Justices Rajesh Bindal and Sindhu Sharma, via video-conferencing, heard the case of Dr Prithvi Paul Raina v State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. The Court upheld the previous judgment passed by a Single Judge Bench.

Facts of the Case

The appellant who is 58-years old has a qualified PhD in Mathematics. He applied for the post of Lecturer in Mathematics in the Higher Education Department.

Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission advertised the post on 31-12-1997 as follows :

  • 13 posts were advertised for the subject of Mathematics; 
  • 9 out of 13 posts were for General Category;
  • 2 out of 13 posts were for Residents of Backward Areas (RBA);
  • 1 post for Scheduled Tribe Category and 1 post for Actual Line of Control Category (ALC). 

The appellant’s name did not appear in the selected list released on 18-06-2000. As a result, the appellant filed a petition against the selection process.

On 28-09-2016, a Single Judge Bench passed a judgment. The Judge dismissed the petition seeking to quash the selection of private respondent to the post of Lecturer in Mathematics. Consequently, the appellant filed an appeal against the above judgment.

Contentions of the Appellant

The appellant challenged the selection of private respondent as Lecturer in Mathematics. He added that the Commission selected the private respondent according to Rule 51 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980.

A Full Bench of the Court declared this Rule ultra-vires in Dr Inder Parkash Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. on 30.07.1999. Hence, the appellant was entitled to statutory preference under SRO 297. However, the respondents did not grant the same to the appellant.

Additionally, the respondents issued three Advertisement Notifications for the same post. The appellant argued that the respondents, however, held only one interview for all three selection processes. This resulted in an erroneous and faulty evaluation of merit, and his selection was not possible.

Contentions of the Respondents

The State claimed that the appellant failed to secure the requisite merit. The selected candidate under the ALC category secured 73.45 points. On the other hand, the appellant had obtained only 50.75 points. This is the reason for his rejection. Hence, the Single Judge Bench had rightly dismissed the writ petition.

Rule-51 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 is prospective. Therefore, it did not apply during the selection process. The respondents claimed to give due weightage to the appellant. Thus, the appellant cannot challenge the selection after failing to make the grade.

Court’s Analysis

The Court referred to the case of Dr Irfan Rasool Gadda v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. 2005 (II) SLJ 423. It held that recasting of Rule 51 is prospective. Hence, it would not apply to the Selection where the process was initiated prior to the decision of Full Bench.

Additionally, the respondents gave weightage to the appellant’s additional qualification. Despite that, he secured lesser merit than the last selected candidate. Therefore, he could not be given any statutory preference.

The interview committee consisted of experts who were from outside the State. While, the candidates in both the notifications were common, also the interview was on the same subject. Thus, they were interviewed for both the notifications. Hence, the appellant failed to prove the faulty evaluation of merit.

Held

The Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It found no merit in this appeal. Hence, the Court dismissed the appeal.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -