Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Vijay Singh vs State And Ors on 3 February, 2021
Author: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
Case No.256
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
(Through video conference)
RPSW No. 11/2017
Vijay Singh ....Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. K.L. Pandita, Advocate.
V/s
State and ors. ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, Dy. AG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
ORDER
03.2.2021
1. This is a petition seeking review of judgment and order dated 22.3.2017 passed in SWP No. 1263/2013.
2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under:
3. The petitioner appears to have applied for the post of Constable in Jammu and Kashmir Auxiliary Police pursuant to advertisement Notification dated 3.2.2009 issued by the Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, who subsequently issued an addendum to the Advertisement Notification dated 22.3.2009 prescribing some additional qualification.
4. The petitioner is stated to have participated in the selection process and submitted a computer diploma, claiming to have been issued by a recognized institute for which he was awarded two additional marks in NARESH KUMAR 2021.02.10 13:28 accordance with the selection criteria fixed. Subsequently, it was noticed I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document by the respondents that the institute where the petitioner had obtained the computer diploma was not recognized as it was neither registered nor affiliated by the J&K State Board of Technical Education. Since the name of the petitioner had figured at serial No. 4 in the RBA category with 24 marks, two marks were deducted and the merit of the petitioner fell to 22 i.e. below the cut-off point.
5. The main thrust of the argument during the course of hearing earlier was that the additional qualification prescribed by the addendum dated 29.3.2009 could not have been considered inasmuch as it was not a part of the earlier notification dated 3.2.2009. This argument, however, was rejected in view of the Apex Court judgment in Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla reported in AIR 1986 SC 1043, subsequently followed in Madras Institute of Development Studies & anr vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & ors, (2016) 1 SC 454.
6. The view expressed in the judgement and order of which review is sought was that the petitioner having responded to the addendum issued by the official respondents and submitted his computer diploma as an additional qualification and therefore, having appeared in the selection process could not be permitted to turn around and challenge the selection process on the ground that the same ought to have been conducted in terms of the earlier notification. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
7. In the present review petition, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner had obtained information under the Right to Information Act, according to which, it transpired that some of the candidates whose names figured in the select list and were appointed had also not obtained their diplomas from the registered institutes and NARESH KUMAR 2021.02.10 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document therefore, if merit was to be re-calculated, the petitioner would be found more meritorious than those selected and appointed.
8. On a pointed question as to when the petitioner applied for the information under right to Information Act, it was stated that the petitioner applied for the information on 22.12.2016 and the same was provided to him on 02.01.2017.
9. It needs to be noticed that even when the requisite information was available with the petitioner as is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no effort at all was made by the petitioner to either amend the petition and to bring on record the additional material which was already available with him. Even when the petition was filed in 2013, the information had been applied as late as on 22.12.2016.
10. This court in fact had proceeded to decide the issues which had been highlighted in the petition and raised during the course of arguments. The fact that has been sought to be urged at this stage was neither a part of the writ petition nor at all argued at the time of hearing when the petition was finally decided finally on 22.3.2017.
11. There is thus no error apparent on the face of record. In my opinion, petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge JAMMU 03.02.2021 (Naresh) NARESH KUMAR 2021.02.10 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document