Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Astha Sharma And Others vs State Of J&K; And Others on 3 May, 2018
Author: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SWP No. 3086/2015, MP Nos. 2/2016 & 1/2015
c/w
SWP No.2904/2015, MP No. 1/2015
SWP No. 2965/2015, MP Nos. 2/2015 & 1/2015
SWP No. 3446/2014, MP No. 4666/2014
SWP No. 2898/2015
SWP No.331/2017, MP No. 1/2017
SWP No.2802/2015, MP No. 1/2015
SWP No. 3097/2015, MP No. 1/2015
SWP No. 1186/2016, MP No.1/2016
SWP No. 2905/2015, MP No. 1/2015
SWP No. 736/2018, MP No. 1/2018
Date of order: 03.05.2018.
Astha Sharma and others Vs State of J&K and others
a/w connected matters.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Judge.
Appearance:
For the petitioner/appellant(s) : Mrs. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Manpreet Kour, Advocate.
Mr. Anchit H. Sharma, Advocate.
Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate.
Mr. F. A. Natnoo, Advocate.
Mr. Gagan Basotra, Advocate.
Mr. Vipin Gandotra, Advocate.
Mr. Abrar Ahmed, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Raman Sharma, Dy. AG.
Mr. Sanjeev Padha, GA.
Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA.
Mr. S. S. Ahmed, Advocate.
Mr. Irfan Khan, Advocate.
Mr. Sheikh Najeeb, Advocate.
Mr. Mohd. Shaqir Hussain, Advocate.
Mr. Ajay Gandotra, Advocate.
Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate.
(Oral)
SWP Nos. 3086/2015, 2904/2015, 2965/2015, 2898/2015, 331/2017, 2802/2015, 3097/2015,
1186/2016, 2905/2015 & 736/2018
01. In these batch of petitions, the challenge is thrown to the select list
dated 05.10.2015 issued by the SSRB for the posts of Junior
Physiotherapists. The first ground of challenge to the select list is that
SWP No. 3086/2015, MP Nos. 2/2016 & 1/2015 a/w connected matters. Page 1 of 11
some of the selected candidates did not fulfill the requisite eligibility
conditions on the last date prescribed as per the notification, i.e.,
28.02.2013.
02. The other ground of challenge is to the extent that certain certificates
like, bonafide certificate, PRC certificate and internship completion
certificate, which were otherwise supposed to be produced at the time of
submission of the OMR forms were not so produced in any case before the
date of the interview.
03. With a view to understand the background, in which the present
controversy has arisen, it becomes necessary to briefly reflect a few
material facts.
04. Advertisement notice No. 03 of 2012 dated 28.12.2012 was issued
by the SSRB. Certain clauses, which have been subject matter of
controversy need to be discussed, as it is in the background of those that
the present writ petition will be decided.
05. According to the notification dated 28.12.2012 and Annexure-B,
therewith, the requisite qualification prescribed was 10+2 with Diploma in
Physiotherapy from any recognized institute. The candidates were required
to possess the requisite professional/technical qualification and were also
required to fulfill all eligibility conditions as per Annexure-A, B & C to
the notification as on 09.02.2013. This was according to clause 3 of the
advertisement notification.
06. According to clause 6 of the notification, candidates were required to
submit photocopy of duly filled in OMR application alongwith a set of the
requisite certificates, experience wherever prescribed.
SWP No. 3086/2015, MP Nos. 2/2016 & 1/2015 a/w connected matters. Page 2 of 11
07. Clause 7 envisaged that incomplete forms in any manner were
required to be rejected without notice. However, in the present case, this is
not the case, where any of the petitioners challenge that the forms were
incomplete. The dispute is only with regard to the acquisition of
qualification and the submission of documents before the cut-off date.
08. Clause 11 and 15 of the notification are relevant and are reproduced
hereunder for facility of reference:-
"11. The last date for the receipt of application
forms as prescribed above shall be the cut off date for
determining the eligibility to apply for the post. The
age limit, however, is determinable with reference to
the 1st of January, 2012. Any qualification/
experience acquired thereafter shall not be taken into
account for any purpose.
15. The candidate must produce the original
qualification/category certificate before the
Committee constituted for oral test or as and when
the Board may call such documents so that their
eligibility for participation in the interview is
verified. Any candidate who fails to produce the
relevant original documents/ testimonials on the
scheduled date shall not be allowed to appear in the
written/ oral test."
09. It appears that although the last date prescribed for receipt of
application forms was fixed up to 09.02.2013, the same stood extended
twice, i.e., by virtue of notice dated 11.02.2013 the time was extended
upto 20.02.2013 and finally by virtue of notice dated 16.02.2013 extension
of submission of application forms was given up to 28.02.2013. What was
stated in the notification dated 16.02.2013, is reproduced hereunder:-
GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
SERVICES SELECTION BOARD,
SEHKARI BHAWAN, RAIL HEAD, JAMMU
****
www.jkssb.nic.in SUB: Extension of Sale and date for receipt of OMR/ICR Application forms.
000 SWP No. 3086/2015, MP Nos. 2/2016 & 1/2015 a/w connected matters. Page 3 of 11It is notified for information of all the candidates that the last date of sale and receipt of OMR/ICR applications forms against Advertisement Notification No. 03 of 2012 dated 28.12.2012, which was fixed upto 20.02.2013, is hereby extended upto 28.02.2013. However, the other terms and conditions will remain the same as notified vide above quoted Advertisement Notices.
sd:-
Secretary, Services Selection Board, Jammu.
No. SSB/Sel/SEcy/784-94/2013 Dated: 16.02.2013.
10. Based upon the applications received and on the performance of the candidates in the oral as well as in interview, the SSRB prepared a select list, which has been questioned in the present petition.
11. With a view to determine the first ground of challenge as to whether the Board has selected any of the candidates who did not possess the technical qualification, i.e., diploma in Physiotherapy by the cut-off date, this Court by virtue of order dated 03.04.2018 directed the SSRB to re-
work on the eligibility of the candidates, keeping in view the cut-off date. This order was issued also considering the statement made by the learned Counsel for the SSRB that some of the selected candidates infact could be ineligible, inasmuch as they had not done their compulsory rotatory internship as Physiotherapists by the last cut-off date.
12. Finally, a supplementary affidavit dated 24.04.2018 was filed, wherein five (05) candidates were identified by the SSRB, 03 in the Open Merit and two (02) in the RBA, who according to the Board itself were ineligible, inasmuch as, they had not completed their compulsory rotatory internship as Physiotherapists, without which they could not be presumed to have successfully completed their diplomas/degrees in Physiotherapy before the cut-off date. The names of the aforementioned five (05) candidates are reflected as under:-
SWP No. 3086/2015, MP Nos. 2/2016 & 1/2015 a/w connected matters. Page 4 of 11 Name of Merit Selected at Date of
Category
Candidates obtained Sr. No. Internship
Anshu Sharma OM 78.5772 04/OM 21.05.2013
Shabir Ahmed RBA 74.5604 15/OM 21.05.2013
Mamta Bhagat SC 74.2819 16/OM 05.05.2013
Shazia Zia RBA 75.0520 01/RBA 05.05.2013
Arjun Singh Katoch RBA 64.4698 07/RBA 21.05.2013
13. The SSRB has also prepared a category-wise last cut-off, which is show as under:-
OM Category - 71.8758
RBA Category - 63.1745
ALC Category - 69.4127
14. According to the learned counsel for the SSRB, none of the petitioners before the Court have secured the marks anywhere near the cut- off merit. However, the petitioners might otherwise find a place after the SSRB re-works the merit list on account of exclusion of the five (05) candidates mentioned hereinabove.
15. The supplementary affidavit filed by the SSRB also enumerates the names of fifteen (15) candidates, who were found eligible within the cut- off date and because of the stay order, their recommendations have not been made. Be that as it may, the first ground of challenge to the extent that some of the candidates did not qualify, as they lack the eligibility qualification on the basis that they had not completed their compulsory rotatory internship as Physiotherapists is taken care of and the problem has been addressed on that aspect.
16. The second ground of challenge, which was common in all the petitions is that some of the candidates whose names figures in the select list prepared earlier by the Board had failed to produce the necessary SWP No. 3086/2015, MP Nos. 2/2016 & 1/2015 a/w connected matters. Page 5 of 11 certificates, which were otherwise to be produced at the time of interview. The following are the candidates, whose names otherwise figured in the select list, but their recommendations were withheld for the reasons mentioned therein:-.
Father's/
S. Int. Sl.
Roll No. Name Husband's Remarks
No. Num
Name
Select List (Open Merit)
1 18 1020800242 Deepali Gupta Vijay Kumar Recommendation withheld and
Gupta is subject to production of
bonafide certificate/ validity of
Degree and within date
internship completion certificate
2 71 1020800380 Poonam Rokri Vijay Rokri Recommendation withheld and
is subject to production of valid
PRC.
4 9 1020800214 Anshu Sharma Kuldeep Kumar Recommendation withheld and
Sharma is subject to production of
within date internship
completion certificate.
5 123 1030800092 Sumeet Kour S. Gurdeep Singh Recommendation withheld and
is subject to production of
bonafide certificate/ validity of
Degree and within date
internship completion
certificate.
7 118 1030800081 Sonia Chib Kartar Singh Recommendation withheld and
is subject to production of
within date internship
completion certificate.
12 55 1020800329 Monika Rekhi Ravinder Kumar Recommendation withheld and
Rekhi is subject to production of
bonafide certificate/ validity of
Degree and. within date
internship completion
certificate.
13 11 1020800222 Arti Gupta Vijay Kumar Recommendation withheld and
Gupta is subject to production of
bonafide certificate/ validity of
Degree.
15 102 1030800052 Shabir Ahmed Gh. Haider Recommendation withheld and
Banday is subject to production of
within date internship
completion certificate.
16 47 1020800306 Mamta Bhagat Rattan Singh Recommendation withheld and
is subject to production of
within date internship
completion certificate.
19 68 1020800369 Pallavi Bishan Gupta Recommendation withheld and
Mahajan is subject to clarification from
competent authority with
regard to residential district and
production of father's PRC.
Waiting List (Open Merit)
1 86 1030800013 Raviraj Singh Jasbir Singh Recommendation withheld and
Sudan Sudan is subject to production of
bonafide certificate/ validity of
Degree.
3 65 1020800359 Neha Sharma Harpaul Sharma Recommendation withheld and
is subject to production of
SWP No. 3086/2015, MP Nos. 2/2016 & 1/2015 a/w connected matters. Page 6 of 11
father's PRC.
4 33 1020800281 Jagan Deep Hardev Singh Recommendation withheld and
Singh is subject to production of
bonafide certificate/validity of
Degree and within date of
internship completion
certificate.
5 90 1030800019 Rimple Ram Lal Sharma Recommendation withheld and
Sharma is subject to production of
bonafide certificate/ validity of
Degree and within date
internship completion
certificate.
Select List (RBA Category)
1 107 1030800059 Shazia Zia Nissar Hussain Recommendation withheld and
is subject to production of
within date internship
completion certificate.
7 10 1020800221 Arjun Singh Mangat Ram Recommendation withheld and
Katoch Katoch is subject to production of
within date internship
completion certificate.
Waiting List (RBA Category)
2 48 1020800309 Maneesha Hushyar Singh Recommendation withheld and
Kotwal Kotwal is subject to production of
bonafide certificate/validity of
Degree.
Selection List (SC Category)
1 70 1020800378 Pooja Sham Lal Recommendation withheld and
Bhardwaj Bhardwaj is subject to production of
bonafide certificate/validity of
Degree.
2 34 1020800282 Jai Kishan Krishan Kumar Recommendation withheld and
is subject to production of
bonafide certificate/ validity of
Degree and within date
internship completion
certificate.
Selection List (ST Category)
4 45 1020800303 Liaqat Nazir Hussain Recommendation withheld and
Mehmood is subject to clarification with
regard to date of declaration of
Degree result and subject to
production of PRC.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the candidates who failed to produce the requisite bonafide certificate, certificate with regard to the validity of the degree or failed to produce the compulsory rotatory internship completion certificate as Physiotherapists by the last date prescribed, as per the notification dated 28.02.2018, their names could not have been reflected in the select list at all. With a view to test this argument, it becomes necessary to understand what exactly was the requirement of the advertisement notice with regard to the production of the requisite certificates.
SWP No. 3086/2015, MP Nos. 2/2016 & 1/2015 a/w connected matters. Page 7 of 1118. As mentioned above, clause 6 read with clause 15 are the relevant clauses, which required the candidates "to produce the original qualification/ category certificates before the Committee constituted for oral test or as and when the Board may call such documents so that their eligibility for participation in the interview is verified". The requirement on the part of the candidates was only with regard to the original qualification / category certificates. Learned counsel for the respondents- Board submits that all the candidates, whose names otherwise figured in the select list except five (05), whose names are to be excluded from the select list had infact produced the requisite certificates of qualification and eligibility before the cut-off date i.e. the date of interview.
19. With a view to examine as to why the recommendations were withheld in regard to the names mentioned hereinabove, record was perused. In most of the cases, the recommendations were withheld on account of the non-production of bonafide certificate or non-production of validity certificate with regard to the Degree or the certificate with regard to the completion of internship. All these certificates were never required to be produced in terms of the advertisement notice supra. These certificates were required to be produced with a view to enable the Board to ascertain further as to whether the certificates already produced were bonafide or not.
20. Any document required by the Board, which was not otherwise supposed to be produced in terms of the advertisement notice, would not disqualify a candidate from consideration for appointment. Needless to say that the certificates like bonafide certificate etc were required to be produced only for making a recommendation to the Government for SWP No. 3086/2015, MP Nos. 2/2016 & 1/2015 a/w connected matters. Page 8 of 11 appointment of the candidates. Insofar as, the selection of the candidates is concerned, the same cannot be said to be bad, inasmuch as the Board also does not consider the said candidates ineligible for appointment. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners on that ground is untenable in law and is, accordingly, rejected.
21. The third issue highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the eligibility of the candidates with reference to the cut- off date prescribed in the notice dated 28.02.2013 as 09.02.2013. It was stated that although the date of receipt of application forms was extended to 28.02.2013, yet the said date was extended only for purposes of receipt of application forms and did not extend the cut-off date for acquisition of the eligibility as regards basic qualification or the technical qualification. Reference in this regard becomes once again necessary to the advertisement notice and the extension notices, which have been issued by the Board. On a perusal of the notice dated 16.02.2013, it becomes clear that the said notice did specify that the date of receipt of application forms was extended to 28.02.2013, other terms and conditions were held to remain the same, as were notified vide advertisement notice No. 28.12.2012.
22. In my opinion, when we see in Clause 11 of the advertisement notice dated 28.12.2012, it can be seen that the cut-off date for determining the eligibility for the post was the last date for receipt of application forms. Notice dated 16.02.2013 has to be read in conjunction with clause 11 of the basic advertisement notice and therefore, once the cut-off date is extended, the eligibility date also gets extended simultaneously. This SWP No. 3086/2015, MP Nos. 2/2016 & 1/2015 a/w connected matters. Page 9 of 11 argument, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected as being without any legal force.
23. Mr. Anchit H. Sharma, Learned counsel for the petitioners in Astha Sharma's case submits that only the petitioner No. 3 in the said petition is stated to be possessed of a higher qualification. It is stated that no extra credits were given to the said petitioner on account of additional qualification and, therefore, to that extent if the additional qualification was taken into consideration, petitioner No. 3 in Astha Sharma's case would have certainly found a place in the merit list. This argument is also untenable, inasmuch as, the criteria for selection prescribed by the Board, does not at all cater to the additional qualification as merit was determined only on the basis, the criteria fixed for selection, which was 80 points for written examination and 20 points for viva-voce. No marks at all were prescribed either for the basic qualification or for the technical qualification, much less for the additional qualification. In any case, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the criteria at this belated stage having participated in the process of selection.
24. Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned counsel for the petitioners in Anshu Sharma's case bearing SWP No. 1186/2016 urged that the cut-off date has to be taken as the date of interview and not as the cut-off date for receipt of application forms. This argument however, is untenable, inasmuch as clause 11 of the advertisement notice specifically prescribed the cut-off date for eligibility as the last date for receipt of application forms. The mere fact that the application forms of the petitioners were accepted and they were permitted to participate in the process of selection would not SWP No. 3086/2015, MP Nos. 2/2016 & 1/2015 a/w connected matters. Page 10 of 11 create any indefeasible right against the petitioners to claim a place in the select panel.
25. For the reasons mentioned above, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Board to re-work the select list within period of four weeks from today. Such of the candidates, who did not fulfill the eligibility conditions by the extended cut-off date, i.e., 28.02.2013 shall be held to be ineligible.
26. Interim directions in main matter also in connected matter shall also stand vacated.
SWP No. 3446/2014, MP No. 4666/2014 Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant writ petition submits that this petition has wrongly been clubbed with the bunch of petitions, therefore, the same may kindly be segregated.
Accordingly, SWP No. 3446/2014 is segregated and be listed on 10.05.2018.
( Dhiraj Singh Thakur ) Judge Jammu 03.05.2018 (Muneesh) SWP No. 3086/2015, MP Nos. 2/2016 & 1/2015 a/w connected matters. Page 11 of 11