Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
State Of J&K; & Ors. vs Jehangir Ahmad Rather on 13 February, 2018
Bench: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No.02
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
LPASW No.207/2016
MP No. 01/2016
Date of order: 13.02.2018
State of J&K and others
Vs.
Jehangir Ahmad Rather and another
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge.
Whether to be reported in Media/Press : Yes
Whether to be reported in Journal/Digest : Yes / No
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. B.A.Dar, Sr.AAG.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rizwan Bhat, Adv.
Per Yaqoob, J Oral
1. Impugned is the judgment dated 23.03.2016 rendered in SWP No. 45/2010 where-under writ petition has been disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner-Jahangir Ahmad Rather as Painter.
2. Basically vide advertisement notice dated 22.05.2006 issued from the office of Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services, J&K, Srinagar, various posts were advertised which include five posts of Painters with the following breakup:-
OM - 03
ST -01
RBA -01
3. Educational qualification prescribed for the post of Painter is as under:-
-2-"i)Matric with ITI certificate in painting trade with 03 years experience;
ii)Shall qualify prescribed medical examination and trade test."
4. Amongst others writ petitioner had also competed. The process ended in selection of respondent no.4(Sabzar Hussain Wani) in the writ petition in category OM, whereas for remaining two posts no candidate could be selected either for not having qualified or for lack of experience.
5. Writ petitioner(respondent No.1 herein) filed SWP No. 45/2010 claiming therein that he possesses requisite experience, therefore, should have been appointed.
6. Learned Single Judge noticing that two posts of Painters from the same selection process are still available, therefore, directed the official respondents to consider and appoint the writ petitioner against one of the posts.
7. The only issue for determination is as to whether writ petitioner-Jahangir Ahmad Rather possessed requisite experience. Admittedly the ITI certificate produced by him has been issued by the Government Industrial Training Institute, wherein it is certified that Shri Jahangir Ahmad Rather has passed the prescribed trade test in the trade of Painter(General) held in the month of July, 2005; then it has been certified that he has undergone the training for the period from August 2002 to July 2004. The certificate has been issued in the year 2005.
8. Three years' experience has to be counted from the date he has been awarded ITI certificate. It being so admittedly in the year 2006 when the -3- advertisement notice was issued writ petitioner-Jahangir Ahmad Rather did not possess three years' experience.
9. Contention of the counsel for the respondent(writ petitioner) is that the only candidate who was selected also did not possess requisite experience which fact has been specifically denied by the appellants while filing reply to the writ petition, wherein it is stated that the private respondent no.4 in the writ petition possessed requisite experience of three years on the cut-off date because in terms of the ITI certificate he has passed the trade test in the month of July 2001, whereas the writ petitioner had qualified it in the year 2005.
10.The grouse projected against the selected candidate is without any merit, therefore, writ petitioner could not claim any parity vis-à-vis selected private respondent.
11.Learned counsel for the respondent(writ petitioner) was pointedly asked to show as to whether the respondent possessed requisite experience; he was fair enough to state that as a matter of fact the respondent has been awarded ITI certificate in the year 2005, however he has been working as a Painter from the year 1997, therefore, has gained sufficient experience.
12.Submission is not tenable because the experience has to be counted from the date ITI certificate is issued, to say otherwise will be absurd. He has not challenged the condition of the advertisement notice; so is bound by the same; his claim that he has sufficient experience is unacceptable as being inconsistent with the experience linked with ITI certificate prescribed in the advertisement notice.
13.To direct the appellants to consider the respondent(writ petitioner) shall be otiose because result is quite known i.e. rejection. The order impugned in the said background is unsustainable, as such, set aside. As a necessary -4- corollary thereto writ petition being without any merit is also dismissed.
Appellants shall re-advertise the two posts which have not been filled up in view of non-availability of the candidates. Respondent(writ petitioner), if he so choses, to participate in the process.
14.Disposed of as above along-with connected MP.
(Sanjeev Kumar) (Mohammad Yaqoob Mir)
Judge Judge
Srinagar
13.02.2018
Muzammil. Q.