Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2 The impugned judgment is assailed by the petitioners on multiple grounds. However, before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Sr. AAG, appearing for the petitioners, it would be appropriate to briefly notice few background facts leading to the present litigation. 3 PHQ J&K vide Advertisement Notification dated 19.07.2008 invited applications for the posts of Constables in the Executive Police for Kashmir Zone. Upon conclusion of the selection process, and in terms of order No. 569/2009 dated 27.09.2009, the respondents along with several other candidates were provisionally selected as Constables. The DIG SKR, Anantnag, accordingly, directed all SSPs of south Kashmir Range to issue formal appointment orders in respect of the selected candidates after fulfilling all the requisite formalities. The respondents, being residents of District Shopian, were directed to report to the SSP Shopian for issuance of formal orders of appointment. Upon receipt of the provisional select list containing the names of the respondents, the SSP Shopian took up the matter with the concerned Departments/Agencies for verification of their documents and character antecedents. After receipt of the requisite verification reports, the formal orders of apintment in favour of the respondents were issued by the SSP Shopian vide his orders No.03/2010, 05/2010, 06/2010, 08/2010, 09/2010 and 13/2010, all dated 06.01.2010. 4 It is not in dispute that some of the selected candidates from the aforesaid recruitment, on completion of the requisite formalities, came to be appointed prior to 31.12.2009 They were thus placed under the Old Defined Pension Scheme. The respondents, who were appointed after the cut-off date prescribed under SRO 400 of 2009 dated 24.12.2009 were, however, treated under the New Pension Scheme (NPS). The said SRO fixed 01.01.2010 as the cut-off date for applicability of the New Pension Scheme.

12 There is no dispute with regard to the fact that though the selection process for appointment of Constables in the instant case was initiated vide Advertisement Notification dated 19th July 2008 and even the selection process culminated into issuance of provisional select list on 27.09.2009, yet the formal orders of appointment on completion of mandatory formalities were issued in favour of the respondents after 01.01.1020, to be exact on 06.01.2010. Going by the plain language of SRO 400 of 2009 dated 24.12.2009, which was of course not the subject matter of challenge in the petitions filed before the Tribunal, the respondents would be governed by the New Pension Scheme. However the grievance of the respondents as was projected by them in their petitions, is that the inordinate delay committed by the petitioners in issuing the formal orders of appointment in their favour in terms of the selection process initiated on 19th July 2008 cannot inure to the benefit of the petitioners and work to their prejudice. It has also been fairly conceded by the petitioners that some of the candidates, though selected in other Districts in terms of the same Advertisement notification dated 19th July 2008, were fortunate enough to get the appointment before 01.01.2010, for the reason that in their Districts, the offices of SSPs were quick to ensure the completion of requisite formalities. The petitioners also do not deny that completion of requisite formalities, including the verification of documents and the character antecedents of the selected candidates including the respondents, was purely within the domain of the petitioners and the administrative delay, if any, caused was not attributable to the respondents.

(ii) That the delay in completing the selection process within a reasonable time and issuance of formal orders of appointment after completing requisite formalities like verification of documents and character antecedents is wholly and entirely attributable to the petitioners and therefore cannot work to the prejudice and disadvantage of the respondent;

(iii) That many candidates selected pursuant to the process of selection initiated vide advertisement notification dated 19th July 2008 were fortunate enough to get the formal orders of their appointment before 01.01.2010 for the reason that theirs SSPs were prompt enough to complete the formalities like verification of documents and character antecedents in time.

15 The Tribunal has, on facts, found that the formal orders of appointment in case of the respondents were delayed because of administrative reasons etc., which the respondents were neither responsible nor accountable for. We concur with the aforesaid finding of fact returned by the Tribunal.

16 In the instant case, the provisional selection/select list stood issued on 27.09.2009 and a period of three months was good enough to verify the documents and character antecedents of the selected candidates, i.e, the respondents herein. It needs to be emphasized that the provisional selection list which was issued on 27.09.2009 was not to be followed by any formal final select list, but the same was to be accepted as a final select list in respect of enlisted candidates subject to verification of qualification and character antecedents of such candidates.