Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 19: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Tashi Rabstan has held that while short-listing candidates for inviting them for interview, the rule of reservation is not required to be followed.
“If category wise candidates based on communal roster are short listed, it would be detrimental to the meritorious candidates belonging to the reserved categories”, the DB further said
This significant judgment has been passed in a bunch of petitions in which petitioners submitted that respondent invited applications from eligible candidates vide Notification dated 30.12.2008 for direct recruitment against various gazetted services—Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Services, J&K Police Gazetted Services and J&K Accounts Gazetted Services, in accordance with SRO 387 dated 01.12.2008 read with SRO 393 and the J&K PSC (Conduct of Examinations) Rules, 2005.
The total number of vacancies advertised in the Notification were 398, of which 210 posts were to be filled for Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Services, 84 in Police Gazetted services and 104 in J&K Accounts Gazetted Services. The writ petitioners-appellants also submitted their applications and after scrutiny they were allowed to participate in the preliminary examination conducted by the J&K Public Service Commission on 23.05.2010 and 24.05.2010 in which 33449 candidates out of 39362 appeared.
The writ petitioners qualified the preliminary examination as per criteria laid down and were declared eligible to appear in the main examinations for selection to the advertised posts. The petitioners appeared in the main written examination, the result of which was declared on 30.09.2010. However, the writ petitioners-appellants were not in the short list.
As per the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005, the direct recruitment has to be made under Rule 4 of the Reservation Rules 2008 which states that 8% posts are to be filled from Scheduled Caste category, 10% from Scheduled Tribe category, 2% from weak and under privileged classes (Social Castes), 3% from residents of ALC, 20% from Residents of Backward Areas (RBA), 6% from ex-servicemen and 3% from physically challenged persons.
Accordingly, out of 398 posts, 225 posts were to be filled from Open Merit category and the rest to be filled from reserved categories, i.e. 80 posts from RBA category, 31 posts from SC category, 40 posts from ST category, 14 posts from ALC category and 8 posts from OSC category.
“It is evident that in the Open Merit category vacancies, candidates belonging to all categories irrespective of their categories, were accommodated purely on the basis of the marks secured by them. As per the select list furnished, 225 candidates were selected in Open Merit category and the last selected candidate in Open Merit category has secured 1128 marks in the final selection, except four candidates who were selected under Physically Handicapped category”, the DB observed.
In RBA category 80 candidates were selected and the 79th candidate has secured 1051 marks in the final selection i.e. Main written examination and viva voce and the 80th candidate selected was under Physically handicapped category. In Scheduled Caste category 31 candidates were selected and the last candidate selected has secured total 1001 marks in the Main written examination and viva voce test. Under the Scheduled Tribe category 40 candidates were selected and the last selected candidate selected under this category has secured 1006 total marks in the main written examination and viva voce test.
In the ALC category 14 candidates were selected and the last selected candidate has secured 1060 marks. Similarly in OSC category 8 candidates have been selected and the last selected candidate has secured 1094 marks in the final selection.
After hearing Senior Advocates PN Raina and MK Bhardwaj with Advocates Alok Bambroo and Vasu Dubey appearing for the petitioners/ appellants whereas Advocate General DC Raina appearing for the State, DB observed, “the facts and figures which were produced by the official respondents and having regard to the well accepted proposition of law that while short listing the candidates for viva voce, reservation rules need not to be followed”, adding “we are in perfect agreement with the order of the Single Judge. There is no merit to accept any of the contentions raised by the appellants”.
With these observations, Division Bench dismissed the LPAs.
Follow our WhatsApp channel