Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Abdul Wahid Khan & Anr vs Union Territory Of Jk & Ors on 31 August, 2021
Serial No. 69
Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 1611/2021; CM No. 5413/2021
Dated:31st of August, 2021.
Abdul Wahid Khan & Anr.
... Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr M. Y. Bhat, Senior Advocate with
Mr Furqan Yaqoob, Advocate.
Versus
Union Territory of JK & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr Shah Aamir, AAG.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.
(JUDGMENT)
01. In the instant Petition, the grievance of the Petitioners, who claim
to have applied for the post of Principal, SKIMS Medical College, Srinagar,
as put to advertisement in terms of Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2021 dated
7th of January, 2021, is that the selection process for the aforesaid post is being
carried on by the Respondents in violation of the mandate of recruitment rules
governing the subject as well as against the scope of Clauses (b) and (c)
prescribed in the Advertisement Notice.
02. Mr M. Y. Bhat, the learned Senior Counsel representing the
Petitioners, while elaborating the claim of the Petitioners so made on the
strength of the pleadings on record, submitted that the selection process for
WP(C) No. 1611/2021; CM No. 5413/2021
the post of Principal, SKIMS, Medical College/ Hospital, Bemina is governed
by the mandate of Recruitment Rules of 2012, as notified by the Government
vide Government Order No. 118-SKIMS of 2012 dated 6th of November,
2012. In this behalf, Mr Bhat has referred to Clauses (II) and (III) of Rule 7
of the aforesaid Rules. It is further submitted that in addition to the aforesaid
Recruitment Rules of 2012, clauses (b) and (c) of the advertisement notice are
supplement to the Recruitment Rules aforementioned which have not been
adhered to by the selection Committee in the process of selection. It is
contended that the selection Committee has not assessed the competing
candidates on the basis of the criteria as laid down in Clauses (II) and (III) of
Rule 07 of the Rules of 2012, which envisaged assessment of the credentials
of the competing candidates and, on the basis of such assessment, preparation
of a panel of upto three candidates in the order of merit to be placed before
the Chairman, Governing Body for making selection/ appointment. It is urged
that no such assessment of the competing candidates was made by the
selection Committee on the strength of the laid down criteria and that, without
such assessment, the selection Committee has prepared the panel beyond the
mandate of Rules of 2012, thereby making the entire process of selection as
void ab initio and illegal. With regard to the objection raised by the other side
qua maintainability of the Writ Petition at this stage, Mr Bhat has referred to
and relied upon two judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court viz.
'(2020) AIR SC 2060' titled 'Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar
& Ors.'; and '(2016) AIR SCW 3373' titled 'Veerendra Kr. Gautam & Ors.
WP(C) No. 1611/2021; CM No. 5413/2021
v. Karuna Nidhan Upadhyay & Ors.'. The learned Senior Counsel has further
drawn the attention of the Court to notification dated 23rd of March, 2021,
enclosed with the Objections so filed by the Respondents; whereby the
competing candidates were informed to present themselves before the
selection Committee along with original documents, credentials and reprints
of publications at the time of interview, and submitted that the same was mere
information and not notice of interview, besides reiterating that only five
candidates were required to be called for interview in tune with the mandate
of rules governing the subject.
03. Objections stand filed on behalf of the Respondents, resisting the
averments made by the Petitioners in their Petition. Besides, Mr Shah Aamir,
the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Respondents,
submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable on the ground that no final
selection has been made by the Respondents, which would have violated any
of the rights of the Petitioners. It is further submitted that the Respondents are,
in due adherence to the recruitment rules governing the subject, in the process
of completing the selection and that the Petitioners, in these circumstances,
cannot, by any stretch of imagination, challenge the said ongoing process, that
too on flimsy grounds which have no substance. It is contended that Clauses
(b) and (c) of the advertisement notice restricting the number of candidates to
five (05) or the panel to (03) have no statutory force as it is only the rules of
2012 which are applicable. In support of his submissions, the learned
WP(C) No. 1611/2021; CM No. 5413/2021
Additional Advocate General has referred to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case titled 'S. B. Mathur & Ors v. Chief Justice of Delhi High
Court and Ors: 1989 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 34'.
04. When this matter was taken up for consideration on the very
motion hearing, i.e., on 17th of August, 2021, the Respondents were directed
to submit the relevant selection records before the Court, which direction was
again reiterated vide Order dated 23rd of August, 2021. Today, when the
matter came up for consideration, Mr Shah Aamir, the learned Additional
Advocate General, produced the relevant selection records in a sealed
envelope.
05. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings
on record and considered the matter. I have also gone through the relevant
selection records made available before the Court.
06. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, coupled with the
reference of the rules and the law made on the subject by the parties, the Court
is of the considered opinion that, at this stage, none of the fundamental, legal
or constitutional rights of the Petitioners stand violated by any action or
inaction on the part of the Respondents, which would have formed a ground
for this Court to show indulgence in the instant case. The Respondents are on
record to make it clear that due adherence is made to the mandate of the
recruitment rules in the entire process of selection, which are the primary and
WP(C) No. 1611/2021; CM No. 5413/2021
basic source for making selection against the post of Principal, SKIMS
Medical College & Hospital, Bemina. Besides, the Respondents have also
produced the relevant records before the Court, which, on perusal, too,
substantiate the stand taken by the Respondents that they are strictly following
the mandate of the rules governing the field while taking the process of
selection to its logical conclusion. Given this position, there is hardly any
scope left for the Court to go deep into the matter while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that view of the matter and without
making any further observations or recording any finding at this stage, which
may otherwise prejudice the cause of either of the parties on culmination of
the process of Selection, the Court is unable to accept the contentions of the
petitioners qua violation of the mandate of the relevant recruitment rules on
the part of the Respondents in the ongoing process of selection against the
post of Principal, SKIMS, Medical College & Hospital, Bemina.
07. The case law cited by the learned Senior Counsel representing
the Petitioners has its genesis to different set of facts and circumstances, as
such, same is not applicable to the case of the present Petitioners.
08. In the above background, I do not find any merit in this Petition,
which is, accordingly, dismissed, along with any connected CM pending
therewith. Interim direction(s), if any, subsisting as on date, shall stand
vacated.
WP(C) No. 1611/2021; CM No. 5413/2021
09. The relevant selection records, as produced before the Court in a
sealed envelope, are returned to Mr Shah Aamir, the learned Additional
Advocate General, in the open Court after their proper re-sealing by the Bench
Secretary of this Court.
10. As prayed for, let a copy of this Order be provided to Mr Shah
Aamir, the learned Additional Advocate General, under the seal and
signatures of the Bench Secretary, today itself.
(Ali Mohammad Magrey)
Judge
SRINAGAR
August 31st, 2021
"TAHIR"
i. Whether the Judgment is reportable? Yes/ No.
ii. Whether the Judgment is speaking? Yes/ No.
TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT
2021.08.31 16:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
