DB stays writ court judgment; allows SSB to go ahead with JEs, SIs exams

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, Dec 9: A Division Bench of High Court of J&K and Ladakh comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul has stayed the judgment of the writ court and directed the Services Selection Board (SSB) to proceed with the selection process of Junior Engineer (Jal Shakti Department) and Sub-Inspector (Home Department), however, result of the same shall await further orders from the court.

Click here to watch video
The order has been passed in an appeal filed by the Jammu & Kashmir Service Selection Board against the judgment of writ court, which quashed the exams of JEs and SIs being conducted by the Services Selection Board.
After hearing Advocate General DC Raina with Deputy AG Rahul Sharma for the SSB, the DB stayed the impugned judgment passed by the writ court and directed Jammu & Kashmir Service Selection Board proceed with the selection process of Junior Engineer (Jal Shakti Department) and Sub-Inspector (Home Department), however, result of the same shall await further orders from this Court.
During the course of hearing Advocate General submitted that in the present scenario, tenders are floated and offers are invited for highly complex technical subjects. It requires understanding and appreciation of the nature of work and the purpose it is going to serve.
“It is common knowledge in the competitive commercial field that technical bids pursuant to the notice inviting tenders are scrutinised by the technical experts and sometimes third-party assistance from those unconnected with the owner’s organisation is taken”, he further submitted, adding “this ensures objectivity. Bidder’s expertise and technical capability and capacity must be assessed by the experts”.
“In the matters of financial assessment, consultants are appointed. It is because to check and ascertain that technical ability and the financial feasibility have sanguinity and are workable and realistic. There is a multi-prong complex approach; highly technical in nature. The tenders where public largesse is put to auction stand on a different compartment”, he further submitted, adding tender with which we are concerned, is not comparable to any scheme for allotment. This arena which we have referred requires technical expertise”.
“Parameters applied are different. Its aim is to achieve high degree of perfection in execution and adherence to the time schedule. But, that does not mean, these tenders will escape scrutiny of judicial review. Exercise of power of judicial review would be called for if the approach is arbitrary or mala fide or procedure adopted is meant to favour one”, the Advocate General said, adding “the decision-making process should clearly show that the maladies are kept at bay. But where a decision is taken that is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the court should follow the principle of restraint”.
DB observed, “the contention of the Advocate General is that the writ petition has been decided by the writ court in contravention to Rule 14 and 15 of the writ proceeding rules and the entire selection process to the post of Junior Engineer (Jal Shakti Department) and Sub-Inspector (Home Department) has been quashed”.