DB modifies order of stay of selection, appointment of 29 AEs

08/06/2018

JAMMU, Jun 7: In two LPA filed against the order of Writ Court whereby Writ Court stay the selection/ appointment of 29 AEs (electricals), A Division Bench of State High Court Comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Sanjay Gupta after hearing Sr. Adv KS Johal with Adv Karan Singh Johal and Sr. Adv DC Raina with Adv FA Natnoo for the appeallants, modified the interim order passed by the writ Court to the extent that appointment of last seven appointees/ candidates selected under open merit category shall remain stayed. However, appointment of rest of the appointees/candidates shall remain subject to outcome of the writ petition.
Division Bench observed that that all the appellants and private respondents are Engineering Graduates in the discipline of Electrical Engineering and Electronics and Communication Engineering. The Power Develop ment Department (PDD) vide communication dated 9.7.2013 had referred 44 posts of Assistant Engineers (Electric) to the Public Service Commission. which in turn vide Advertisement Notification No.15-PSC (DR-P) of 2013 dated 12.8.2013 notified the said posts.
DB further observed that the appellants as well as writ petitioners-respondents have responded against the said Notification. It is contended that against 44 posts referred to hereinabove, 2814 applications were received by the PSC. On the basis of a Computer Based Screening Test conducted on 30.11.2017, at two notified Centers viz. Jammu and Srinagar, 136 applicants-candidates were declared to have qualified in the ratio of 1:3 after application of the rule and called for oral test/ Interview. Accordingly, 136 candidates appeared in the aforesaid Screening Test. In terms of the order passed by this Court, one more candidate was allowed to participate in the selection process in addition to 136 candidates. On the basis of performance in the interview conducted as per the criteria fixed under Rule 51 of the J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 as amended from time to time and other related parameters, the select list was prepared and published vide Notification. No. 15-PSC (DR-S) of 2018 dated 3.4.2018. Subsequently appointment orders have been issued in favour of the appellants.
DB further observed that Writ petitioners-respondents herein filed writ petition challenging the selection and appointment conducted by the Public Service Commission (PSC) inter alia on the ground that the candidates were selected on the basis of a non-uniform criteria, inasmuch as, various candidates were interviewed by different Selection Committees constituting of different expert members. It was urged before the writ Court that it was not possible for the different Committees to adopt the same adjudging standards and to determine inter see merit amongst various candidates appearing before them and writ Court, after analyzing the facts in depth and hearing learned counsel for the parties has stayed the selection and appointment of private respondents. Being aggrieved present Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the appellants.
DB after hearing both the sides observed that it may be noticed that order passed by the Single judge was an interim measure and selection and appointment of private respondents was stayed subject to objections and till next date of hearing only. Normally, the Courts do not interfere in such matters where orders are passed subject to objections. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellants have already been appointed and writ petitioners-respondents herein are only seven in numbers, stalling whole selection process against the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) would not be appropriate at this stage.
Thus, without entering into the merit of the case, we are inclined to modify the interim order passed by the writ Court to the extent that appointment of last seven appointees/candidates selected under open merit category shall remain stayed. However, appointment of rest of the appointees/candidates shall remain subject to outcome of the writ petition.
DB also request the writ Court to take up the matter for final consideration at the earliest. Respondents before the writ Court to file counter-affidavit within two weeks with advance copy to other side. Rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter. JNF

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty