Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Considered.

2. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners for annulling the select list are :

(a) that the aspiring candidates of District Kupwara for the posts of teachers (District Cadre, Kupwara) formed one class so interview of all the candidates who were called for interview should have been conducted only by the members of District Level Selection Committee constituted for District Kupwara, but interview has been conducted by three Committees, as a result thereof, rule of uniformity has been offended rendering interview process as invalid;

12. The interview of general category candidates was held w.e.f. 04.05.2011 till 21.06.2011. During the said period, Convener of the Selection Committee, Mr.Shabir Ahmad Kanth was replaced by one Gulzar Ahmed, Member Service Selection Board. The same is explained by respondents 2, 3 and 6 to 9 in their objections by stating that during the process of interview, mother of the Convener- Mr.Shabir Ahmad Kanth was hospitalised so was not able to continue with the interview process.

13. Vide communication No. SSB/N/Adm/858-59 (A)/2011 dated 20.06.2012 addressed by the Secretary, Services Selection Board, Srinagar to Mr.GulzarHussain, KAS, Member, Services Selection Board, Srinagar, it was conveyed to Mr.GulzarHussain that Mr.Shabir Ahmad Kanth is not available for interview process, for the posts of teachers District Cadre, Kupwara as he has to attend his ailing mother on 20.06.2011 and 21.06.2011 so he (Mr.GulzarHussain) shall attend the interview process in place of Mr.Shabir Ahmad Kanth on 20.06.2011 and 21.06.2011 at DakBunglow, Kupwara as Convener of the Selection Committee.

26. In opposition, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shah projected that the whole process of interview is vitiated for want of uniformity. According to him, three Committees had conducted the interview of the candidates and have awarded marks for interview according to their own standards when interview process is one for maintaining uniformity, standard of adjudging the merit of the candidates for awarding marks for viva must be one. The change in the second Committee and then constitution of third Committee is not only in violation to the Act and Rules of 2010 but is also tainted with malafides and on such basis challenge even to the provisional select list is permissible. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Honble Apex Court in case M.V.Thimmaiah and others v. Union Public Service Commission and others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 119. In the aforesaid judgment, in para 21, the Honble Apex Court has observed that normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. In para No.22, The Honble Apex Court has further observed as under :-

32. It was not possible for the petitioners to anticipate after they were interviewed, that there would be change in composition of the Committee. So at that stage when they had participated in the interview process till then had no occasion to lodge any protest. The stand of the respondent-Board that since the petitioners have participated in the interview process, they cannot turn around to challenge the same process, is totally fallacious so is rejected as such.

33. Learned counsel for the petitioners while praying for quashment of interview process and select list relied on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in J&K SSRB v.NeelamGupta and others, reported in 2012 (2) JKJ 268. In the reported judgment, it is held that for selection to the posts of Physical Education Teachers, a Committee was constituted. Chief Agriculture Officer, Udhampur was its member, in view of his other occupations could not continue to associate himself with the selection process and was replaced by the District Employment Officer, Udhampur. Before his replacement, some of the candidates were interviewed, such replacement was termed as change in composition of the Committee. After change of composition of the Committee, other candidates were interviewed. It was held that since competing candidates formed a class in itself so were required to be adjudged only by one Committee. The standard of adjudging the merit of the competing candidates admittedly was changed. There was no uniformity in adjudging the merit of the competing candidates, the selection process was rendered arbitrary, violative of rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.