Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Ms. Asma Maqbool vs State Of J&K & Ors on 8 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 28.11.2023
Pronounced on:08.12.2023
SWP No.2434/2017
MS. ASMA MAQBOOL ...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Syed Faisal Qadiri, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Tayba Gulnar, Advocate.
Vs.
STATE OF J&K & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. S. A. Naik, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The petitioner has challenged the select list of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientists Sericulture issued by respondent No.2, whereby respondents No.3 to 8 have ben temporarily appointed as Professor-cum-Junior Scientists Sericulture.
2) Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that she responded to Advertisement Notice No.01 of 2017 dated 13.03.2017, issued by respondent No.2, whereby applications were invited for selection against various posts including the posts of Professor-cum-Junior Scientists Sericulture. It has been submitted that as per the criteria fixed by the respondent University, Academic Performance Indicator (API) was to be formulated as per the qualifications and certificates of each candidate and 80 points were allocated for API score whereas 20 points SWP No.2434/2017 Page 1 of 10 were allocated for interview/viva voce. According to the petitioner she had performed extremely well during the selection process but when the impugned selection list was issued by respondent No.2, she did not find her name in the same.
3) The petitioner has challenged the impugned selection list on the ground that while calculating the API score of the petitioner, the official respondents have not taken into account three weeks on job training undergone by the petitioner regarding which a certificate had been issued by Director, Extension Education, SKUAST, Kashmir. It has been submitted that the petitioner had undergone the said course in the year 1998 and the certificate was issued on 20 th October, 1999. It has been submitted that a similar two weeks on job training course certificate issued in favour of respondent No.6 has been considered by the official respondents and two points have been allocated in her favour while calculating her API score. According to the petitioner, had she been given three points for three weeks on job training course undergone by her in the year 1998, regarding which she had produced the requisite certificate, she would have secured extra three points and made the grade. It has been submitted that the official respondents have deliberately applied selective approach in an arbitrary manner by awarding two points to respondent No.6 in respect of similar certificate and denying the credit of the same to the petitioner, thereby causing grave prejudice and discrimination against the petitioner. SWP No.2434/2017 Page 2 of 10
4) The official respondents No.1 and 2 have contested the writ petition by filing their reply, in which they have submitted that the petitioner has been awarded one point for participation in the Resources Development Programme conducted from 8th to 15th March, 2012 at Srinagar but in respect of on job training programme conducted by Division of Sericulture in the year 1998, regarding which certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 20.10.1999, no point has been awarded in her favour. It has been submitted that even in the case of other candidates, no points were awarded in respect of similar certificates as these certificates do not indicate duration of the programme. It has been further submitted that respondent No.7 has also not been awarded any point in respect of the certificate relating to on job training programme conducted by Division of Sericulture of the respondent University because the said certificate did not indicate the duration of the programme. Regarding respondent No.6, it has been submitted that two points were awarded to her for the training programme of two weeks duration conducted by the Directorate of Sericulture Extension & Training with effect from 14.01.2003 to 01.02.2003.
5) The official respondents have submitted that a notice bearing endorsement No.AU/Adm(GAD)/2017/7294-95 dated 15.07.2017 was issued by the respondent University informing the candidates about the provisional select list recommended by the Screening Committee and it was notified that in case any candidate has any objection, he/she may SWP No.2434/2017 Page 3 of 10 bring it to the notice of the Registrar in writing along with necessary documents upto July 20, 2017 for consideration. The notice was followed by another notice bearing No.Au/Adm/(GAD)/2017 /7658-59 dated 21.07.2017informing the candidates that the Screening Committee is meeting on 22nd July, 2017 at Faculty of Horticulture, Shalimar, to address the representations received for review/re- evaluation of API score card etc. and the candidates were directed to ensure their presence before the Committee for any clarification with authentic proofs. It has been submitted that in spite of these notices, the petitioner did not make any representation nor did she present herself before the Screening Committee with any documentary proof, as such, her claim is not tenable. It is submitted by the official respondents that the selection has been made strictly in accordance with the criteria and the same has been made in a transparent manner, which is evident from the fact that the official respondents have provided all the documents to the petitioner when she applied under the RTI Act.
6) The private respondents in their reply to the writ petition have submitted that the selection has been made in a transparent manner on the basis of the criteria set out by the official respondents. It has been submitted that no point was awarded to respondent No.7 in respect of the on-job training programme whereas respondent No.6 was granted two points for the on-job programme of two weeks duration. It has been submitted that respondent No.7 has been granted six marks for different training programmes and not for the on-job training programme SWP No.2434/2017 Page 4 of 10 whereas the points allocated to respondent No.6 were in respect of a different training programme, the duration of which was two weeks. It has been submitted that the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner for on job training course and the certificate which has been considered by the official respondents in respect of respondent No.6 are not identical.
7) The petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit to the reply filed by the respondents. Along with the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of certificate dated 15.11.2001 issued by the respondent University, wherein it has been specified that the petitioner had undergone on job training programme in Sericulture with effect from April 21, 1998 upto 20th June, 1998. This certificate has been issued in continuation to certificate dated 20th October, 1999 that was produced by the petitioner along with her application form. It has been submitted in the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioner had validly responded to the notification issued by the official respondents inviting objections and had submitted a formal application to the official respondents. According to the petitioner, upon submission of detailed objections, she was informed that the reason for non-consideration of the certificate relating to on job training course is that she had procured the said certificate during her B. Sc. Course, therefore, the same could not have been considered. It has been also submitted that the certificate dated 15.11.2001 clarifying the duration of on job training course SWP No.2434/2017 Page 5 of 10 undergone by the petitioner was submitted by her at the time of filing of objections.
8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the record relating to selection which is subject matter of the writ petition.
9) The short point which is required to be determined in this case is as to whether, while computing the API score of the petitioner, the official respondents were justified in excluding the certificate dated 20 th October, 1999, issued in favour of the petitioner, whereunder it was certified that she had undergone on job training course in Sericulture in the year 1998. The consistent stand of the official respondents in this regard is that the certificates which did not specify the duration of the course were not considered by the Selection Committee while calculating the API score of a candidate. The contention of the petitioner is that a similar certificate in respect of respondent No.6 was considered by the Selection Committee while as in the case of the petitioner, the certificate produced by her was ignored. The other contention of the petitioner is that at the time of filing of objections, she had submitted certificate dated 15.11.2001 which clarified the position as regards the duration of course in respect of which certificate dated 20th October, 1999 had been issued by the respondent University. It has also been contended by the petitioner that the certificate in question was issued by the respondent University, therefore, the respondents could have easily ascertained the duration of the course from its record. SWP No.2434/2017 Page 6 of 10
10) Before determining the merits of the rival contentions, it would be apt to refer to the criteria that was fixed by the respondent University prior to holding of the selection process. As per this criteria, 80 points were allocated for API whereas 20 points were allocated for interview/viva voce. As per the proforma relating to API score card, 50 points were earmarked for academic record and service record whereas 30 points were earmarked for assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills. Out of these 30 points, 06 points were earmarked for trainings to be allocated in the following manner:
Minimum scores for APIs for direct recruitment in University for Assistant Professor Academic record and service record Marks Marks obtained Trainings i) Training of one week No. x 1 duration ii) Training of two weeks No. x 2 duration iii) Training of three No. x 3 weeks duration
11) In the case of the petitioner, she was allocated 46.52 points out of 80 points in her API score card. She was given one point for training of one week's duration. If her contention that she had undergone three weeks on job training course is accepted, then she was entitled to three more points under the heading "trainings", which would have fetched her 49.52 points in the API score card. However, her certificate regarding on job training course undergone by her in the year 1998 has not been taken into consideration.
SWP No.2434/2017 Page 7 of 10
12) A perusal of the record relating to selection shows that a similar certificate issued in favour of respondent No.7 has not been taken into consideration by the official respondents while calculating his API score. So far as respondent No.6, with whom the petitioner is claiming parity, is concerned, the certificate produced by her along with her application form clearly indicates the duration of the course undergone by her. As per the said certificate, respondent No.6 has undergone on- job training course in Sericulture at Sericulture Training Institute, Srinagar, from 14.01.2003 to 01.02.2003 and the certificate has been issued on 2nd February, 2003. In the case of the petitioner, the certificate produced by her along with her application form does not specify the duration of the course and it is because of this reason that the said certificate has not been taken into consideration. As already stated, a similar certificate issued in favour of respondent No.7 has also not been taken into consideration while calculating his API score.
13) It has been contended by the petitioner that pursuant to the notice inviting objections to the provisional select list issued by the official respondents, she had submitted certificate dated 15.11.2001 wherein period and duration of the training course indicated in certificate dated 20th October, 1999, was specified. However, in their reply affidavit, the official respondents have clearly stated that the petitioner did not respond to the notices inviting objections. The record of the selection that was produced by learned counsel appearing for the official respondents, reveals that neither the objections of the petitioner nor SWP No.2434/2017 Page 8 of 10 copy of certificate dated 15.11.2001 is available in the said record. In the face of specific denial by the official respondents and in the face of the fact that the objections and the certificate alleged to have been produced by the petitioner are not available in the record of the selection, the contention of the petitioner that she had submitted certificate dated 15.11.2001 along with the objections cannot be accepted, particularly when she has not produced any receipt or any other material to substantiate her claim that she had filed objections to the provisional selection list. Thus, it can be inferred that the petitioner has not filed any objections to the selection list so as to furnish clarification as regards the duration of the course, mention whereof is made in certificate dated 20th October, 1999.
14) In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, it becomes clear that the official respondents have not discriminated against the petitioner. They have applied a uniform policy of not considering those certificates which do not specify the duration of training courses. In the case of the petitioner, they have not considered her certificate dated 20th October, 1999 and a similar yardstick has been applied in case of respondent No.7 as well. The certificate in respect of respondent No.6 is distinctly different from the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as the certificate issued in favour of respondent No.6 clearly indicates the duration of the course, as such, the petitioner cannot claim parity with her. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has been discriminated against by the official respondents. SWP No.2434/2017 Page 9 of 10
15) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.
16) The record be returned to learned counsel for the official respondents.
(Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 08.12.2023 "Bhat Altaf, PS"
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
SWP No.2434/2017 Page 10 of 10