Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Oct 20: In a LPA filed by Ganga Sharma and others whose appointment and selection as Assistant Professor of Dogri was quashed by the Single Judge, Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M K Hanjura has stayed the operation of the judgment.
During the course of hearing, Advocate Abhinav Sharma submitted that the PSC issued an Advertisement Notification No. 12-PSC (DRP) of 2014 dated 29-05-2014, whereby the applications were invited for the posts of Assistant Professors in various disciplines including 13 posts in the subject/ discipline of Dogri.
Pursuant to the selection process conducted by the PSC, the select list came to be issued vide Notification No. 02-PSC (DR-S) of 2016 dated 02-03-2016, whereby and where under, three candidates including appellant were selected under SC Category and four posts under open category were reserved under various court orders.
The contesting respondents filed petition through the medium of which selection of the appellants and proforma respondents came to be challenged primarily on the ground that the subject experts associated and invited by the PSC did not possess any qualification in the Dogri Subject as such they were not eligible to be associated as experts.
Since the selection of the appellants was not stayed by the High Court, therefore, vide Govt. Order No. 227-HE of 2017 dated 18-04-2017 the appellants were appointed as Assistant Professors in their respective categories, whereas four posts under open/general category remained vacant on account of various court orders.
“Despite the fact that only selection of the appellants was challenged by the contesting respondents and during the pendency of the writ petition the appellants stood appointed yet neither the writ petition was amended nor the orders of appointment were ever challenged by the contesting respondents in that writ petition”, Advocate Sharma said.
The PSC and the appellants filed their separate objections to the writ petition stating therein that the contesting respondents were legally stopped from challenging the selection, in as much as, after having participated in the selection process and having been interviewed by the committee comprising of the experts, which according to the contesting respondents were ineligible on account of non possession of any qualification in Dogri language.
It was further stated and pleaded in the objections that the experts possessed vast experience and knowledge of Dogri language, therefore, were eligible to be associated as experts and no formal educational qualification in Dogri was required either under UGC Regulation, 2010 or under J&K Education (Gazetted) College Service Recruitment Rules 2008.
Despite the specific stand taken by the appellants and also by the PSC in their separate objections, the Single Judge vide judgment and order impugned dated 27-09-2017 quashed the selection and consequent appointment of the appellants by holding that the experts in the absence of any educational qualification in Dogri language were ineligible to be associated as experts and their vast experience and their eminence in Dogri language was of no relevance.
Aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order dated 27-09-2017, the appellants challenged the same on several grounds.
Follow our WhatsApp channel