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 Senior AAG appearing for the petitioners, we deem it appropriate to briefly notice few background facts leading to the present litigation. 3 PHQ J&K, vide Advertisement Notification dated 07.02.2009, invited applications for the posts of Constables in five Battalions of IRP, namely 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th. Upon completion of the recruitment process pursuant to the aforesaid notification, a select list comprising 4482 candidates, including the respondents herein, was issued by the Police Headquarters vide different orders on various dates i.e., 03.07.2009, 29.07.2009, 29.09.2009, 30.09.2009, 06.10.2009, and 12.11.2009. Out of the said 4482 selected candidates, 1884 candidates, upon completion of the requisite formalities by the competent authorities, were formally appointed up to 31.12.2009. The remaining 2307 candidates, including the respondents herein, though selected in the same recruitment process, came to be appointed only after 01.01.2010 due to procedural requirements such as verification of documents and character antecedents.

10 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 07.02.2009 and even the selection process culminated into issuance of provisional select lists on 03.07.2009, 29.07.2009, 29.09.2009, 30.09.2009, 06.10.2009 and 12.11.2009, yet the formal orders of appointment on completion of mandatory formalities were issued in favour of the respondents after 01.01.2010, 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 07.02.2009 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, in terms of the same Advertisement notification dated 07.02.2009, were fortunate enough to get the appointment before 01.01.2010, for the reason that the petitioners 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 07.02.2009 were fortunate enough to get the formal orders of their appointment before 01.01.2010 for the reason that the petitioners were prompt enough to complete the formalities like verification of documents and character antecedents in time. The respondents herein and such candidates who got appointment orders before 01.01.2010, for the aforesaid reasons, cannot be treated differently, more particularly when both sets of employees were the beneficiaries of the same selection process. Such position, if allowed to persist, would be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and,

13 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.

14 In the present case, the provisional selection lists were issued on 03.07.2009, 29.07.2009, 29.09.2009, 30.09.2009, 06.10.2009 and 12.11.2009, pursuant whereto 4482 candidates were selected. Out of them, 1884 candidates were formally appointed up to 31.12.2009, whereas 2307 candidates, including the respondents herein, though selected in the same recruitment process, came to be formally appointed after 01.01.2010 due to the requirement of verification of their documents and character antecedents. It is pertinent to note that the provisional selection lists issued on the aforesaid dates were not to be superseded by any further final select list, rather, they were to be treated as final in respect of the enlisted candidates, subject only to verification of their qualifications and character antecedents of such candidates.