Candidate in a selection process securing a merit position below wait listed candidate cannot lay any claim of selection: HC

18/05/2019

JAMMU, MAY 17: High Court holds that a candidate in a selection process securing a merit position below the wait listed candidate cannot lay any claim of selection and appointment against the advertised post in the event the wait listed candidate does not join against the post when appointment is offered to him on account of non-joining of the selected candidate.
This significant judgment has been passed by Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey in a petition filed by Likayat Hussain Baniya in which a short but significant question which is: whether a candidate in a selection process securing a merit position below the wait listed candidate can lay a claim for selection and appointment against the advertised post in the event the wait listed candidate does not join against the post when appointment is offered to him on account of non-joining of the selected candidate? The backdrop of the circumstances in which the above question arises is noticed hereunder.
The petitioner had offered his candidature for selection against the post of Accounts Assistant (ST category), District Cadre Shopian, advertised by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (the Board) at serial no.326 of its advertisement notice no.03 of 2014 dated 30.12.2014, the intending department being the Finance Department. The Board, at the culmination of the selection process, vide its communication no.SSB/Sel/Secy/2016/19683-38 dated 31.08.2016 forwarded the selection list containing the name of a lone candidate alongwith a waiting list, also containing the name of a lone candidate, to the Department. Consequent to the above, the Finance Department, vide Order no.253-Acctts. of 2016 dated 06.12.2016, accorded sanction to the deputation of the selected candidate to the Accounts Training School where he was required to report within 21 days of the issue of the order.
It appears that while the Department had yet to act on the selection list so forwarded to it by the Board, the petitioner made a representation addressed to the Directorate General, Accounts and Treasuries, bringing it to his notice that the selected candidate and the candidate figuring in the waiting list had tendered affidavits stating that they did not intend to join, and requesting him to direct the concerned authorities to process his case for selection / appointment in accordance with norms. The above representation, a copy of which has been placed on record as annexure D at page 21 of the writ petition, bears receipt no.2041 dated 01.12.2016 of the Directorate General, Accounts and Treasuries, Finance Department.
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey observed that therein Clause 4(c) of the relevant Office Memorandum dated 14.07.1967 provided that if some of the candidates recommended / allotted for appointment against the specific number of vacancies reported in respect of a particular examination do not become available for one reason or another, the Commission may be approached, within a reasonable time, with request for replacements from the reserved, if available.
So, therein the Office Memorandum, which governed the subject, itself provided that the Department could approach the Commission for replacements and such replacements had to be requested for from the 'reserved', meaning thereby that the Commission was obliged to maintain a reserved list and only such candidates as figured in the reserved list could be sent as replacements.
Reserved list is almost the same thing as a waiting list in the instant case. Apart from the fact that there being no provision in Rule 14 of the Rules herein envisaging a provision akin to the aforesaid Office Memorandum, the petitioner herein, as already held, had failed to secure a place in the waiting list.
Besides, therein despite the fact that the appellants before the Supreme Court figured in the reserved list and despite the permissible request of the Department, the Commission had without any justification declined to send the names of the appellants as replacement candidates. In nutshell, the judgment is wholly distinguishable.
With these observations High Court dismissed the petition. JNF

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty