Kamal Kishore vs State Of J&K And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1111 j&K

                                                                    Sr. No.16

        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

                                                LPA No. 37/2019
                                                CM No. 1664/2009[1/2019]

Kamal Kishore                                       .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                       Through: Mr. Vikas Magotra, Advocate.

                 Vs

State of J&K and others                                        ..... Respondent(s)

                       Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

15.09.2021

The petitioner claims that he had a right of appointment as

Sub-Inspector in the process of selection initiated in the year 2009.

It is stated that even the advertisement notice did not reflect the exact

number of vacancies, for which the process of selection had been initiated, there

were as many as 394 vacancies of Sub-Inspector in the Executive Wing of the

J&K Police.

It is also stated that as against 394 vacancies, only 266 candidates

were selected and the select list to that extent was published in the year 2010.

There was also a waiting list prepared, in which the name of the petitioner

figured at Sr. No. 17 under the Open Merit Category. It also appears that certain

writ petitions were filed, challenging the process of selection, in which from

time to time, the Court passed orders, directing as many as 37 vacancies not to

be filled up. Subsequently, these petitions were disposed of and out of the

37 vacancies, which became available to be filled up, only 14 candidates were

appointed.

Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG states that 14 candidates, who

came to be appointed were the petitioners before the Court and, therefore, their

appointments were made on the Court directions.

As per the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner,

all the 14 candidates were picked up from the waiting list. The fourteen

candidates, who came to be appointed, 8 were of the Armed Police and six were

of the Executive Police.

Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG further states that the select list was

prepared separately for both the wings.

Needless to say that a candidate, whose name figures in the waiting

list gets a right to get appointed only if any of the candidates in the select list

opts not to join after selection.

In the present case, it is not clear as to how the waiting list was

operated by the official respondents in regard to the Executive Police. What

precisely was the ratio of the judgments in compliance whereof, these fourteen

people including six from the Executive Police were given appointments by

operating the waiting list, it needs also to be ascertained.

Learned counsel for the respondents is, therefore, directed to place on

record all the judgments, in compliance whereof these fourteen appointments

were made from out of the waiting list, as also the decision taken by the

respondents based thereupon, if any.

Another issue, which may be required to be considered is whether

there was any decision to limit the process of selection to a particular number of

vacancies out 394 vacancies, which were available to be filled up from the date

of issuance of the select list.

List again on 21.10.2021.

                             (Puneet Gupta)         (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
                                 Judge                     Judge
Jammu
15.09.2021
Ram Krishan