Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ishrat Naveed vs State Of J&K And Others on 9 October, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, Puneet Gupta
1
S. No. 204
Advance List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
LPASW No. 197/2018
(Through Video Conferencing)
Ishrat Naveed
.... Appellant
Through: None.
v.
State of J&K and others
.... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asif Maqbool, Dy. A.G., for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
09.10.2020
1. None appears for the appellant when the matter is called out.
2. By way of the instant Letters Patent Appeal filed on 14th of December, 2018, the appellant has assailed the order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition [SWP No. 2238/2016] titled Ishrat Naveed v. State of J&K and others.
3. From perusal of the record of the appeal, it appears that by a notification dated 29.05.2014; the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission had advertised various posts of Assistant Professors including 22 posts of Assistant Professors in the Biotechnology. Short listing was to be effected through a written screening test in case the number of candidates exceeds 350 against the posts not exceeding 100 and where the applicants are more than three times against the vacancies exceeding 100, the short listing in the proportion of 1 (post) : 3 (applicants) shall be done through a Written Screening Test. Short listing by other methods was prescribed by clause (b).
4. The appellant has stated that the short listing has been done by the Respondent-PSC by calling candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:3 on SYED TASADUQ QADRI 2020.10.12 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 the basis of academic merit in the basic and higher qualification without holding the Screening Test.
5. The appellant was the applicant for the post of Assistant Professor in Biotechnology, filed the writ petition assailing the notification dated 22nd of November, 2016 issued by the Public Service Commission, Srinagar, and sought quashing of the consequent appointments and issuance of a writ to the respondent no. 1 for making the recommendation of the appellant for the appointment to the said post. The appellant sought direction to the respondents to award points for special attributes, publication and teaching experience and consequent issuance of the writ.
6. The grievance of the appellant rested on the contention that the selection was made in violation of the rules and that undue benefit was shown to the short listed candidates who were called for the interview. The appellant further submits that she has been prejudiced by short listing of 40 candidates instead of 36 candidates as provided by Rule 40 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 (for short Business Rules).
7. A perusal of the impugned judgement dated 15.10.2018 shows that the learned Single Judge has carefully considered the requirement of Rule 40 of the Business Rules and the selection process as notified by the respondents in the Advertisement notice.
8. On a consideration of the matter, the learned Single Judge has observed as follows:
"The above referred Rule position makes it abundantly clear that the plea of the petitioner that he has been prejudiced by the short listing of 40 instead of 36 candidates as provided in the Rule 40 supra, is unfounded, for, the Rule 40 of the Business Rules does provide for a minimum of 40 candidates to be shortlisted when the number of posts range between 11 to 100 and admittedly the number of posts in the present case were 12, therefore, respondents were within their rights to restrict the short listing either to three times of the number of posts or to the minimum of 40 candidates, which would mean either 36 or 40 candidates were required to be shortlisted and the respondents have certainly not gone beyond of what was prescribed by the Business Rules Therefore, the star ground of the petitioner goes."SYED TASADUQ QADRI 2020.10.12 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3
9. We find from the perusal of the reply of the Public Service Commission filed in the writ petition that advised details of the points awarded to the candidates. For this reason the contention of the appellant that he had not been awarded points for special qualification is without merit.
10. The learned Single Judge has also rejected the writ petition for the ground that the appellant has raised no objection to the short listing criteria and challenges the same after participating in the selection process.
11. The challenge was not tenable for this reason as well.
12. We also find that the selection process had commenced on the advertisement issued in the year 2016 and is long over and the appointments had already been made to the posts.
This Letters Patent Appeal is clearly devoid of any legal merit. Furthermore even if the appellant was entitled to the any relief, that cannot be given to her at this belated stage.
13. In view of the above, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed along with pending application.
(PUNEET GUPTA) (GITA MITTAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
SRINAGAR
09.10.2020
TASADUQ
SAB:
SYED TASADUQ QADRI
2020.10.12 11:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document