Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition, as are gatherable from the impugned judgment and other material on record, are that in response to Advertisement Notifications No. 01 of 2019 and 02 of 2019 issued on 1st February, 2019 by the J&K Service Selection Board ["SSB"], the petitioner herein applied for the post of Audiometry Technician. The qualification prescribed for the post was as under:
"10+2 with Science or above qualification with Degree/Diploma in Audiometry or Speech Therapy Course from any recognized Institute/SMF".

3. The selection process initiated in terms of aforesaid Advertisement Notifications culminated into issuance of a provisional select list by the SSB vide Notification dated 5th October, 2019, in which the name of the petitioner figured at S. No. 2 of both the select lists. It appears that during verification of documents, the SSB entertained a doubt with regard to the eligibility qualification of the petitioner. The prescribed qualification was a Degree/Diploma in Audiometry or Speech Therapy Course from any recognized Institute/SMF, whereas the qualification possessed by the petitioner was Bachelor of Science in Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, obtained from Bangalore University.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed OA No. 114/2022 before the Tribunal and prayed, inter-alia, for a writ of Certiorari for quashing the circular dated 3rd February, 2022, and a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to finalize the selection to the post of Audiometry Technician and recommend his name for appointment. The OA was contested by the respondents on the ground that the posts subject matter of Advertisement notifications stood referred to SSB before 31st October, 2019, and, therefore, were consequently withdrawn in terms of circular dated 3rd February, 2022. The Tribunal, having considered the rival contentions and the material on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to make out a case to throw challenge to the Office Memo dated 3rd February, 2022, and, therefore, there was no illegality committed by the respondents in withdrawing the posts against which the petitioner was provisionally selected.