Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ravi Kumar Sharma vs Principal Secretary And Ors on 17 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SWP No. 2689/2018
IA 01/2018
Reserved on: 10.03.2021
Pronounced on:17.03.2021
Ravi Kumar Sharma ... Petitioner(s)
Through: - Mr. Achal Sharma Advocate
Vs.
Principal Secretary and ors ...Respondent(s)
Through: - Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Kumar-J
1 In this petition, the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this
Court in granting him the following relief(s):
"(i) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of
Certiorari by quashing the selection of private respondent
Nos. 5 and 6 for the posts of Driver in Subordinate Courts of
Jammu Division made by respondent No.1 in terms of Select
List dated 04.02.2018; and.
(ii) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus, commanding the official respondents to select
and appoint the petitioner against the post of Driver in
Subordinate Courts of Jammu Division under open merit
2 SWP 2689/2018
category strictly in terms of Advertisement Notice dated
20.02.2014".
2 The case of the petitioner, as projected by him in his petition, is
that an Advertisement Notice bearing No. 986 dated 20.02.2014 came
to be issued by respondent No.1, whereby and whereunder the
applications were invited from amongst the eligible candidates for
making selection/ appointment to the various posts, including the posts
of Driver under open merit category in Jammu Division. It is submitted
that as per the said Advertisement notice, the required qualification for
the posts of Driver was prescribed as Matric pass with valid LMV
Driving licence. It is further submitted that the petitioner being eligible
applied for the post of Driver under the open merit category.
Thereafter, respondent No.4, after scrutinizing the application forms
received for the posts of Driver, vide Notification dated 08.02.2018,
directed the candidates, who were shortlisted, to appear in the
interview. Subsequently, upon conducting the interview of the
shortlisted candidates, respondent No.1 issued a select list bearing
No.1104 dated 04.12.2018 in terms whereof, private respondent
Nos. 5 and 6 were selected against the posts of Driver. However, the
petitioner was kept in the waiting list for Jammu Division vide order
bearing No.1105 dated 04.12.2018.
3. Mr Achal Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the impugned select list dated 04.12.2018,
insofar as it pertains to the respondent No.5 and 6 is unsustainable in
law as the same is not based upon the merit. It is submitted that the
3 SWP 2689/2018
impugned select list is required to be quashed on the ground that the
Advertisement notice was issued for filling up of two posts of Driver
under open merit category, but, at the time of selection, respondent
No.1 selected only one candidate under open merit Category thereby
filling the other post from OBC category. It is submitted that though
the petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.5, yet the
respondents have selected respondent No.5, thereby ignoring the merit
of the petitioner.
4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have opposed the writ petition by filing
objections. In their objections, they have submitted that in terms of
Notification dated 20.02.2014, amongst others, two posts of Driver in
Jammu Division under open merit category came to be advertised and
pursuant to the said Notification, select list of the candidates for the
said posts was issued vide order dated 04.12.2018. Respondent Nos.5
and 6 were selected under open merit category. It is denied that
respondent No.6 was selected under OBC category. As a matter of fact,
both the posts came to be filled up under open merit category. It is also
submitted that though respondent No.6 had applied as OSC category
candidate, however, he was considered and selected under the General
Category on the basis of his merit obtained by him in aggregate as per
the criteria laid down by the Selection Committee. Therefore, the plea
of the petitioner that respondent No.6 has been selected under OBC
category is misplaced and contrary to the facts. It is submitted that as
per the consolidated merit wise list of the candidates, respondent No.6
has obtained 38 points in aggregate and respondent No.5 has obtained
4 SWP 2689/2018
37 points, whereas, the petitioner has obtained only 36.5 points. It is,
thus, submitted that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been selected against
two posts of drivers under open merit category on the basis of their
merit and the petitioner has been placed in the waiting list being next in
the order of merit.
5 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
6 In order to appreciate the controversy in issue, certain undisputed
facts need to be noticed.
7 Undoubtedly, the two posts of driver were notified under open
merit category. Amongst others, the petitioner and respondent Nos.5
and 6 applied for the said posts. The selection process was completed
and upon approval of the recommendations of the Selection
Committee, respondent Nos.5 and 6 came to be selected under open
merit category, whereas the petitioner was placed in the waiting list on
the basis of his merit. As is evident from the record, respondent No.6
obtained 38 points in aggregate and respondent No.5 obtained 37
points, whereas the petitioner obtained only 36.5 points. The said
position is clear from the consolidated merit wise list of the candidates,
who had appeared in the interview for the posts of drivers in Jammu
Division pursuant to an Advertisement Notice dated 20.02.2014.
8 It appears that, while preparing the consolidated merit wise list
of the candidates, who had appeared in the interview for the said posts,
respondent No.6 was shown to have obtained 38 marks in aggregate
5 SWP 2689/2018
and his category was indicated as 'OBC'. He, however, was selected in
the General category because of his merit. However, the petitioner
could not secure sufficient marks to be placed in the select list and,
therefore, was placed in the waiting list. Therefore, the plea of the
petitioner that that he is more meritorious than respondent No.5 is
meritless and deserves to be rejected.
9 The plea of the petitioner that respondent No.6 has been selected
under OBC category, is also not correct, for the reason that though he
belonged to OSC category and had applied under the said category, yet
he was considered and selected under open merit category on the basis
of his merit obtained by him as per the criteria laid down by the
Selection Committee. Otherwise also, it is well settled that the general
category vacancies in public employment is open to all including
aspirants belonging to reserved categories. The Supreme Court in the
case of Jitendra Kumar Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and
others; (2010) 3 SCC 119 has held that, if a person belonging to
reserved category is selected on the basis of his merit in open
competition along with general category candidates, then he will be
selected towards general category posts. Thus, there is no law
prescribing reservation for general category candidates in public
employment and, therefore, there could not arise any question against
the reserved category candidates occupying or being selected against
general category posts because of their merit.
6 SWP 2689/2018
10 In view of above enunciation of law and the undisputed facts of
the present case, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the
same along with connected CMs is, accordingly, dismissed.
(SANJAY DHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Jammu
17.03.2021
Sanjeev
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
SANJEEV KUMAR UPPAL
2021.03.18 11:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
