Rakesh Kumar vs D/o General Administration Ut Of J&k on 31 December 2024

1. Rakesh Kumar Age 44 years, S/o Sh. Nath Ram R/o Ward no. 3, Sunderbani Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

2. Susham Devi Age 44 years W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar R/o Ward no. 3, Sunderbani Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

3. Yash Paul Age 46 years S/o Late Sh. Om Parkash R/o Ward no. 4, Sunderbani Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

4. Mohd. Zaved Age 38 years S/o Mohd. Rashid R/o Rawarian Tala Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

5. Kuldeep Kumari Age 50 years W/o Yash Paul R/o Lamberi (Jamana) Tehsil Nowshera District Rajouri

6. Bittu Kumar Age 45 years S/o Munshi Ram R/o Lamberi Tehsil Nowshera District Rajouri

7. Suresh Kumar Age 48 years S/o Baldev Raj R/o Bhajwal Sunderbani Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

8. Parshotam Dass Age 53 years S/o Isher Dass R/o Lamberi Tehsil Nowshera District Rajouri

9. Sanjeev Gupta Age 45 years S/o Sh. Om Parkash R/o Ward no. 4, Sunderbani Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

10. Bishan Kumar Age 49 years S/o Dina Nath R/o Thickka (Kangri) Tehsil Beri pattan District Rajouri

11. Smeet Kumar Age 43 years S/o Late Sh. Bal Krishan R/o Kangri Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

12. Sanjeet Kumar Age 47 yearsS/o Late Sh. Milkhi Ram R/o Bal Shama Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri.

13. Mukesh Kumar Sharma Age 46 years S/o Sh. Madan Lal R/o Bal Shama Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

14. Seema Khajuria Age 30 years W/o Jeet Kumar R/o Bakhar Tehsil Siote District Rajouri

15. Sudha Sharma Age 45 years W/o Bishvinder Dev R/o W.no. 3 Sunderbani District Rajouri

16. Om Parkash Age 48 years S/o Brij Lal R/o Ghai Bhajwal Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

17. Harvind Kumar Age 47 years S/o Late Sh. Bal Mukand R/o Channi (Ganeera) Tehsil Siot District Rajouri

18. Sanjeev Sharma Age 39 years S/o Sh. Tilak Raj R/o Thandipani Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

19. Chaman Lal Age 50 years S/o Bhagat Ra, R/o Khabbal P/o Banpuri Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

20. Ravinder kumar Age 45 years S/o Madan Lal R/o Peli Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

21. Pushap Kumar Age 51 years S/o Mulkh Raj R/o Sunderbani Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

22. Hem Raj S/o Parma Nand R/o Ghai Bhajwal Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

23. Om Parkash Age 44 years S/o Jagdish Lal R/o Siot Tehsil Siot District Rajouri

24. Dutt Kumar Age 51 years S/o Bhagat Ram R/o Kalideh Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

25. Naresh Kumar Sudan Age 49 years S/o Late Sh. Kuldeep Raj R/o Ward no. 6, Sunderbani Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

26. Rochak Sharma Age 38 years S/o Kuldeep Raj R/o Ward no. 6, Sunderbani Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

27. Raj Kumar Age 50 years S/o Mohan Lal R/o VPO Dandesar Tehsil Nowshera District Rajouri

28. Gopal Krishan Age 49 years S/o Late Sh. Charan Dass R/o Andh P/o Dharmsal Tehsil Kalakote District Rajouri

29. Vinod Kumar Age 38 years S/o Sh. Gopal Dass R/o Thandapani Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

30. Pushpinder Kumar Age 49 years S/o Sh. Munshi Ram R/o Patrara Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

31. Surinder Paul Age 49 years S/o Sh. Kartar Chand R/o Bhajwal Fulwari, Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

32. Satish Kumar Age 52 years S/o Dhandu Ram R/o Thickka Tehsi Beripattan District Rajouri

33. Mohinder Lal age 47 years S/o Sh. Behari Lal R/o Channi Tehsil Siot District Rajouri

34. Veena Kumari Age 46 years W/o Darshan Lal R/o Ghai Bhajwal

Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

35. Ved Parkash Age 40 years S/o Makhan Lal R/o Langer Tehsil Sundrebani District Rajouri

36. Sat Paul Age 48 years S/o Romesh Chander R/o Devil P/o Bambliya Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

37. Vinay Kumar Age 38 years S/o Yash Paul R/o Thandapani Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

38. Sulinder Kumar Age 49 years S/o Sansar Chand R/o Thandapani Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

39. Chander Paul Age 47 years S/o Vidya Nath R/o Bhajwal Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri

40. Ravinder Kumar Age 40 years S/o Late Nand Lal R/o Bhajwal Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri ……Applicants

VERSUS

1. Union Territory of J&K Through its Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. General Administrative Department Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu-180001.

2. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu-180001

3. Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri-185131

4. Ameet Singh S/o Dalip Singh

5. Tehseen Iqbal S/o Mohd. Bashir bhat

6. Pardeep Kumar S/o Krishan Lal

7. Abdul Rashid S/o Abdul Hamid

8. Suman Kumari S/o Kedar Nath

9. Maqbool Hussain S/o Alam Din

10. Zakir Hussain S/o Mohd. Amin

11. Arshad Hussain S/o Bashir Hussain

12. Parveen Akhter S/o Ahmed Din

13. Jagdish chander S/o Bansi Lal

14. Imtiaz Ahmed S/o Mohd. Alsar

15. Mohd. Yaqoob S/o Mohd. Akbar

16. Naseer Shahzad S/o Mohd. Bashir

17. Tasdaiq Hussain S/o Hamid Ullah

18. Parkash Kour S/o Harnam Singh

19. Mohd. Rafiq S/o Kala Khan

20. Arshad Ahmed S/o Mohd. Saliq

21. Mangal Chand S/o Dhani Ram

22. Mohd. Safeer S/o Mohd. Zakir

23. Shoket Ahmed S/o Afzal Hussain

24. Abad Hussain S/o Mohd. Sadiq

25. Perwaiz Ahmed S/o Talib Hussain

26. Mohd. ARshid Malik S/o Mohd. Sadiq Malik

27. Sunil Kumar S/o Sita Ram

28. Sanjay singh S/o Kikar Singh

29. Mohd. Altaf S/o Shah Mohd.

30. Tarlok Singh S/o Jeet Singh

31. Shokeen Singh S/o Dost Mohd.

32. Javid Iqbal S/o Mohd. Taj

33. Nirmal Kour S/o Jaspal Singh

34. Mohd. Javid S/o Said Mohd.

35. Rash Paul S/o Tilak Raj

36. Khalid Hussain S/o Manzoor Hussain/

37. Zaheer Abass S/o Mohd. Afzal

38. Birbal S/o Balak Ram

39. Mohd. Shabir S/o Mohd. Din

40. Rajesh Kumar S/o Ishar Dass

41. Javid Iqbal S/o Mohd. Shabir

42. Harbans Singh S/o Bhadur Singh

43. Mohd. Ashraf S/o Ghulam Hussain

44. Doulat Ram S/o Kaka Ram

45. Arif Hussain S/o Majeeb Hussain

46. Chanchala Kumari D/o Sukhdev Singh

47. Surinder Singh S/o Lal Shoor

48. Wazir Hussain S/o Noor Mohd.

49. Mohd. Iqbal s/o Hashmat

50. Shazad Ahmed S/o Mazoor Hussain

51. Gurdep Singh S/o Ajit Singh

52. Sheraz Ahmed S/o Mohd. Din

53. Harvir Singh S/o Basanat

54. Imitiaz Ahmed Bhat S/o Abdul Rashid Bhat

55. Gulshan Ara S/o Said Mohd.

56. Satnam Singh Gurcharna Singh

57. Masood Ahmed S/o Abdul Rashid

58. Mohd. Shafiq S/o Ghulam Qadir

59. Naresh Chander S/o Waryam Chander

60. Shakeel Ahmed S/o Mohd. Sharif

61. Abdul Rehman S/o Issrail

62. Vishal Sharma S/o Ashok Sharma

63. Nisar Hussain S/o Taj Din

64. Naseer Ahmed S/o Mohd. Din

65. Sanjay Kumar S/o Parshori Lal

66. Azmit Ullah S/o Mazoor Hussain

67. Sahil Suri S/o Vijay Kumar Suri

68. Javaid Iqbal S/o Ghulam Nabi

69. Gurcharna Singh S/o Jaspal singh

70. Surjeet Singh S/o Vijay Singh

71. Abdul Aziz S/o Shamas Din

72. Shokit Hussain S/o Mohd. Iqbal

73. Ghulam Jilani S/o Assadullah

74. Susheel Kumar S/o Lakhmi Dass

75. Pushap Raj s/o Shanku Ram

76. Lal Hussain S/o Hussain Ali

77. Sanjeeev Kumar S/o Sita Ram

……Respondents

For the applicant : Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Adv with Ms. Saba

For the respondents: Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG

O R D E R

Per Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder S Dogra, Member (J) The fact of the case in brief is that the respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement notice No. 01 of 2006 dated 27.3.2006 inviting applications for filling up 75 Class IV posts in District Rajouri and the required qualification prescribed therein was as under : “for the posts of peon/orderly, chowkidar etc., the minimum qualification is 8th pass and for the posts of Gardner etc., the minimum qualification is Matric.”

It is submitted that though Govt. Order No. 42-GAD of 2006 dated 9.1.2006 provided that the committee so constituted for making selection shall complete the process of recruitment in a time bound manner within a period of three months, respondent No.3 after the issuance of advertisement notice did not take any steps for almost four years. However respondent No.3 issued revised schedule for conducting interviews for Class IV post advertised vide advertisement notice No.01 of 2006 and interview dates were notified w.e.f. 15.12.2009 to 18.2.2010. The applicants appeared in the interview process conducted by the respondent No.1 on the scheduled dates. Instead of issuing the select list, respondent No.1 vide Govt. order No. 664-GAD of 2013 dated 23.4.2013 decided to conduct the selection process afresh in a time bound manner only for the candidates who applied in pursuance of advertisement notice No. 01 of 2006 dated 27.3.2006. After the issuance of the Govt. order dated 23.4.2013, the respondent No.3 issued the notice dated 22.5.2017 whereby and whereunder the candidates who had applied in response to advertisement notice NO. 01 of 2006 dated 27.3.2006 were advised to submit the self-attested copies of their marksheets of 8th class and above for the purpose of short listing the candidates for conducting interviews afresh. Being aggrieved of the Govt. order dated 23.4.2013 and notice dated 22.5.2017 the applicants approached Hon’ble High Court in SWP NO. 1429/2017, WP(C) No. 3240/2019 and WP(C) No. 1913/2017. Other similarly situated persons also approached Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 1365/2017 wherein an interim order was passed as under : “Meanwhile as an ad interim and subject to objections, the selection process pursuant to advertisement notification No. 01 of 2006 dated 22.3.2006 shall remain subject to outcome of further orders in this writ petition.”

In SWP NO. 1429/2017 filed by similarly placed individuals, Hon’ble High Court vide interim order dated 7.6.2017 directed as under : “Subject to objections, it is ordered that the respondents may go ahead with the selection process with regard to the post in question but the same shall not be finalized till further order from this Hon’ble Court.”

Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 1967/2018 passed the following direction : “…..keeping in view the submissions made and the nature of relief prayed for, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to conclude the selection process initiated vide advertisement notice No. 01 of 2006 dated 22.3.2006, as already directed by this court vide order dated 6.10.2016 passed in SWP No. 2175/2016, unless of course, there is no legal impediment

within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the respondent No.2.”

Pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court in various writ petitions, the Deputy Commissioner in various districts started the process of finalizing the selection list including the respondent No.3. But in SWP No. 1617/2015 the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 26.9.2018 quashed the Govt. order No. 664-GAD of 2013 dated 23.4.2013. The respondents filed LPA against the order dated 26.9.2018 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 31.8.2016 and the respondents filed SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court. During the hearing of the SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the counsel for the State contended that 2013 selection process qua Rajouri was completed and was at the stage of publication of select list. Considering the plea made by the State, the appeal was disposed of by Hon’ble Supreme Court directing issuance of consequential appointment orders in furtherance to the select list claimed to have been prepared by the respondents. After the disposal of the said SLP, the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri vide order dated 23.4.2021 issued the impugned select list. This order dated 23.4.2021 revealed that the then Deputy Commissioner constituted a committee comprising of various officers for conducting the interviews as per the schedule notified which were subsequently conducted w.e.f. 10.1.2018 to 19.1.2018 and it was reported by the member secretary of the committee that 13 candidates appeared in the interview but the selection process could not be finalized in view of the Court order dated 31.5.2017 passed in SWP No. 1365/2017. The order dated 23.4.2021 further substantiates that the official respondents are committing another illegality in the garb of directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, because in the order dated 23.4.2021 the respondents have admitted that no forms of the candidates to be interviewed were provided to the committee members at the time of interview and the interview was conducted only on the basis of list provided to the interviewing committee and further the respondents have admitted that there is no authentic record which could substantiate the facts that the candidates who appeared before the interviewing committee as per schedule w.e.f. 10.1.2018 to 19.1.2018 were the original applicants who applied in the year 2006, meaning thereby the whole selection and the interview was a hoax which cannot be accepted as a mode of recruitment. Hence being aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2021 by virtue of which the tentative select list of Class IV advertised vide advertisement notice No. 01 of 2006 dated 22.3.2006 pertaining to District Rajouri, the applicants have approached this Tribunal in the present OA seeking the following relief : A) Allow the instant Original Application;

B) Quash impugned tentative select list of candidates issued vide order dated 23.4.2021 incomplete violation of rules as well as without application of mind; C) Direct the respondents to scrutinize and consider only those individuals in the selection zone who have participated in the interviews conducted in the year 2018 amongst 1340 candidates; D) Restrain the respondents from issuing the appointment orders in favour of the private respondents who figure in the impugned tentative select list issued vide order dated 23.4.2021. E) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The respondents have filed their counter stating inter alia that Government vide order No. 42-GAD of 2006 dated 9.1.2006 allocated 75 Class IV posts of different departments for recruitment through open competition. The process of recruitment was initiated by way of issuance of advertisement notice NO. 01 of 2006 dated 22.3.2006 calling applications from the interested candidates. 12545 applications were receipted upto 15.4.2006 (closing date). Vide notice dated 30.10.2007 interview schedule was notified and interviews were started on 16.11.2007 and deferred on 23.11.2007. It was again started in December 2009 and completed in February 2010 by four sub-committees constituted by the then Chairman as per the notified schedule. The then Chairman after examining the whole issue observed that the procedure adopted cannot withstand the scrutiny of law and vide communication dated 9.9.2010 apprised the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu about the process of recruitment and recommended for further orders in view of the shortcomings. Accordingly GAD vide order No. 664- GAD of 2013 dated 23.4.2013 issued directions to Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri along with other two Deputy Commissioners as under :

i) The selection process be carried out afresh in a strictly time bound manner, only for the candidates who had applied in pursuance of the 2006 advertisements; ii) Candidates shall not be barred for crossing the maximum age bar and shall be given deemed relaxation.

In compliance of the above directions issued by the Government vide notice dated 1.7.2017, all the candidates who applied for Class IV posts in response to Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2006 dated 22.3.2006 were informed to deposit marks cards of 8th class and above which they were possessing as on 15.4.2006 (closing date) along with proof of submission of application forms as most of the candidates have not attached the same with their application forms so that further action for shortlisting of candidates is initiated. Vide order dated 6.1.2018 interview schedule was notified for conducting interviews w.e.f. 10.1.2018 to 19.1.2018 indicating as under : i) Interview schedule and particular of the eligible candidates will be available in the offices of Deputy Director, Employment & Counselling Centre, Rajouri/all Tehsil offices and official website; ii) No additional qualification shall be entertained acquired after the receipt of application forms i.e. 15.4.2006; iii) Mere figuring of name in the list does not entitle the candidate to appear in the interview as it shall be subject to the scrutiny of all testimonials of the candidates shortlisted. iv) No separate interview call letter shall be issued to any candidate. A candidate who fails to appear in the interview on the given date shall not be interviewed later and shall forfeit his/her right of consideration.

The then Deputy Commissioner constituted committee and the committee conducted interviews as per schedule w.e.f. 10.1.2018 to 19.1.2018 and report was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 5.2.2018 by the Member Secretary. As per the report of the committee, 1340 candidates appeared for interview, selection process was completed but the same was not finalized in view of the directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court dated 31.5.2017 in SWP No. 1365/2017. While the matter was to be finalized, Hon’ble High Court at Srinagar in SWP NO. 1617/2015 quashed the Govt. order No. 664-GAD of 2013 dated 23.4.2013 by virtue of which fresh selection process was initiated. Accordingly the matter was taken up with the GAD and GAD vide letter dated 10.4.2019 conveyed that in view of the pendency of the SLP, the Deputy Commissioner has to wait for the judgment in the SLP. Vide letter dated 4.5.2020 GAR forwarded the copy of the order dated 2.3.2020 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the SLP and issued directions to notify select list which has been prepared in pursuance to the process of recruitment conducted in terms of Govt. order No. 664- GAD of 2013 dated 23.4.2013 and issued appointment orders thereof within the stipulated time. In compliance of the order of Hon’ble Apex Court, selection list was issued vide order dated 23.4.2021. The respondents have submitted that the entire process is done in compliance with the order of Hon’ble Apex Court and in a very transparent manner by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Hence the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the present OA.

3. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials available on record.

4. In view of the above discussions, we find that the Deputy Director, Employment & Counselling Centre, Rajouri, the then Member Secretary has reported that he has supervised a compilation of list of 1340 candidates at NIC Computer Centre, DC, Rajouri for conducting interviews. But the select list dated 23.4.2021 showed 1742 candidates were interviewed between 10.1.2018 to 19.1.2018. This shows that there is some differences in the list dated 23.4.2021. Moreover, from the report of the Member Secretary of the Committee constituted vide order dated 6.1.2018, it is evident that no forms of the candidates to be interviewed were provided to the committee members at the time of interview and further no criteria/mechanism for selection of 1340 candidates was adopted/notified by the committee. Respondent No.2 has also sought clarification from respondent No.1 how the appointment is to be done when the interviewing committee did not have signed copy of 1340 candidates before them who were to be interviewed. Therefore, we find lot of discrepancies in the matter of selection. We therefore allow the

OA quashing the impugned select list dated 23.4.2021 and directing the respondents to scrutinize and consider only those candidates who participated in the interview held in 2018. If selected, the appointment of the present applicants shall be considered strictly in accordance with the rules governing the field. The entire exercise be completed within 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Indrani/PPS