Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection ... vs Hakim Muzamil & Ors on 12 February, 2025
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar, Puneet Gupta
Serial No. 04
Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA No. 53/2020 in
SWP No. 1584/2014
Dated: 12th of February, 2025.
Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Recruitment Board.
... Appellant(s)
Through: -
Mr Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with
Mr Younis Hafiz, Assisting Counsel.
V/s
Hakim Muzamil & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr Shuja-ul-Haq Tantray, Advocate; Mr M. A. Chashoo, Advocate; and Ms Rehana Fayaz, Advocate.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge Hon'ble Mr Justice Puneet Gupta, Judge (JUDGMENT) Sanjeev Kumar-J:
01. This appeal by the Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Board ("the JKSSB"), filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, is directed against an Order and Judgment dated 1st of July, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court ["the Writ Court"] in SWP No. 1584/2014 titled 'Hakim Muzamil & Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors.'.
02. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that vide advertisement notification No. 11 of 2023 dated 24th of December, 2013, the JKSSB notified some posts of Junior Engineer (Civil), State Cadre, for making selection. Vide notification dated 4th of October, 2013, the JKSSB notified selection criteria which was as under:
LPA No. 53/2020 in SWP No. 1584/2014 Page 2 of 5 i. Written Test: 73 marks;
ii. B. Tech: 05 marks;
iii. M. Tech: 02 Marks; and
iv. Viva Voce: 20 Marks.
Total 100 Marks
03. Aggrieved, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein filed SWP No. 1584/2014 titled 'Hakim Muzamil and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors.', seeking the following relief(s):
"i. Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide 10 points for candidates possessing M. Tech qualification in Civil Engineering instead of 2 points or in the alternative, 5 points instead of 2 points and by quashing the criteria adopted by the selection committee issued vide notification No. 11 of 2013 dated 24-12-2023, 3 points have been provided for written test and instead of 10 points, two points have been provided for the candidates having M. Tech; and ii. Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents that at the time of interview, petitioners be provided 10 points for M. Tech qualification or in the alternative 5 points for M. Tech or 0 to 5 points for B.E. Degree and thereafter selection be concluded."
04. The Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, primarily, on the ground that in the earlier selection process initiated in the year 2010, the JKSSB had earmarked 10 points for M. Tech qualification, which were arbitrarily reduced to 02 points in the instant selection process.
05. The Writ Petition was contested by the Appellants herein by filing their Reply Affidavit.
06. Thereafter, the matter was considered at length by the Writ Court and, vide Order and Judgement impugned, the Writ Petition was allowed and the selection criteria to the extent of allocating 02 marks to the higher qualification of M. Tech was held not correct in law. The Writ Court, without quashing the selection process and having regard to the facts LPA No. 53/2020 in SWP No. 1584/2014 Page 3 of 5 and circumstances of the case, directed the JKSSB to re-work the merit of the Writ Petitioners/ Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein by allocating 07 marks to the higher qualification of M. Tech, instead of 02.
07. The impugned Order and Judgment passed by the Writ Court is assailed by the Appellant-JKSSB, inter alia, on the ground that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein were not entitled to challenge the selection criteria, after having participated in the selection process. It is contended by Mr Abdul Rashid Malik, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Appellant-JKSSB, that the selection criteria, which has been found fault with by the Writ Court, was duly notified in advance and all the eligible candidates, including the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, participated in the selection process with their eyes wide open and being fully aware of the criteria adopted by the Appellant-JKSSB for making the selection. The impugned Judgment is also challenged on the ground that the Writ Court has not given any reason or justification for prescribing 07 marks to the qualification of M. Tech. It is argued that formulation of a rational and non-discriminatory criteria lies within the domain of the selection body and the Courts may not be competent to prescribe a particular criteria to be adopted by the Selection body for making a particular selection.
08. While the case was being heard, it was pointed by Mr Malik, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, that even if the impugned Order and Judgment passed by the Writ Court is complied with in letter and spirit in respect of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein and they are allocated the 07 marks for M. Tech, instead of 02 marks, yet none of them will make it to the select list. He would submit that the cut-off in the selection in question in the open merit category was 67.50, which merit is not obtained by any of the private Respondents herein. Mr Mohammad Younis, Public Law Officer (PLO), JKSSB, has come along with records to substantiate the aforesaid position.
LPA No. 53/2020 in SWP No. 1584/2014 Page 4 of 5
09. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Judgment impugned passed by the Writ Court is not sustainable for the reason that the Writ Court has not appreciated the fact that selection criteria which has been found fault with by the Writ Court was duly published and within the knowledge of all the candidates, including the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein voluntarily participated in the selection process, without raising any protest or objection against the selection criteria. They approached the Court to challenge the selection criteria only after they found that they were not likely to make it to the select list.
10. The legal position in this regard is well settled and is not required to be reiterated herein. Otherwise also, from reading of the entire Judgment passed by the Writ Court, we do not find any basis or yardstick that has been applied by the Writ Court to re-formulate the selection criteria and allocate 07 marks to M. Tech, instead of the 02 marks earmarked in the selection criteria framed by the Appellant-JKSSB. We are in agreement with the learned Counsel for the Appellant-JKSSB that formulation of a selection criteria for making selection lies within the domain of the appointing authority/ selection agency, as the case may be, and the Courts have no jurisdiction to prescribe a particular criteria. The Court of law may set aside or quash a selection criteria, if the same is found to be arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
11. Viewed from any angle, the impugned Order and Judgment passed by the Writ Court is not sustainable. Otherwise also, even if we were to re-work the merit of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, none among them is making the grade.
12. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned Order and Judgment LPA No. 53/2020 in SWP No. 1584/2014 Page 5 of 5 passed by the Writ Court is set aside. The Appellant-JKSSB may proceed to fill up the vacant posts in accordance with Rules.
13. Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of on the above terms, along with the connected CM(s).
(Puneet Gupta) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
SRINAGAR
February 12th, 2025
"TAHIR"
i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes.
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document