Raj Akhter Ali v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Through: Ms. Asifa Padroo, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 07.10.2022 The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks inter-alia a writ of certiorari for quashment of selection of Special Police Officer (SPO) advertised vide notice dated 20th December, 2019, besides seeking writs of mandamus for commanding upon the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as SPO over and above the head of the private respondents on the premise that an advertisement notices for engagement of SPO was issued by the respondents to be engaged in JSDRF and in response to which the petitioner applied being a graduate and also possessed of diploma in plumbering from J&K State Council for Vocational Training as also having worked as Voluntary Home Guard w.e.f 1st June, 2013, under Belt No. 93/G/M endorsed in a certificate issued by Director Home Guards dated 28th June, 2018.
It is being stated in the petition that in the advertisement notice supra, the respondents had earmarked 10 marks for Matric, 12 marks for 10+2 qualification and 15 marks for Graduation besides earmarking marks for height and One marks for in-service Voluntarily Home Guard for each year as also One mark for the knowledge/experience in various fields including plumbering. It is being further stated that the petitioner after competing in the process of selection was not selected by the respondents for not having awarded requisite mark/s against the experience of being Plumber. The non-selection of the petitioner is stated to be done by the respondents for extraneous consideration not having disclosed the merit position of the candidates selected. Per contra, the respondents in their reply though admit the issuance of advertisement notices, the manner and method of recruitment provided therein including the award of marks under different heads.
It is however being contended in the objections that the petitioner was awarded four marks for each year on account of being a Voluntary Home Guard however, one mark for the qualification of being a Plumber was not awarded on the premise that the marks both for being Voluntary Home Guard and for being possessed of a vocational training could not be granted to a candidate but could be granted only under one of said head/s. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The admitted position in the matter is that the advertisement notice issued by the respondents does not anywhere spell out that a candidate as awarded marks for being Voluntary Home Guard would not be entitled to the additional one mark for being possessed of a vocational training. The respondents cannot deny the petitioner the said One mark for being possessed of the vocational training of plumbering when no such rider is contained in the advertisement notice.
The mechanism adopted by the respondents in placing a rider in regard to above is not countenanced in view of the admitted position that no such condition or rider was incorporated in the advertisement notice. The petitioner thus is held entitled to be awarded to the said One mark for being possessed of the vocational training of Plumbering. Accordingly by issuance of writ of mandamus, respondents are directed to award petitioner One mark for being possessed of vocational training course of plumbering and upon evaluation of the total marks including the said One mark, if the petitioner is found to have qualified in the process of selection, petitioner shall be offered consequently appointment of SPO and granted all consequential benefits to which he may be entitled thereto. Disposed of. SRINAGAR 07.10.2022 Sakeena (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.