The High Court put on hold the appointment orders of 482 Sub Inspectors after some aggrieved candidates complained about irregularities and discrepancies in the selection process and sought probe into it.
The posts were advertised by Jammu and Kashmir Police in 2016 and the selection was made in December 2018 for 482 posts.
However, some aggrieved candidates approached the High Court alleging foul play and sought transparency in the selection process and get the list stayed.
The single bench of High Court of Justice Rashid Ali Dar directed that appointment orders to the selected SIS shall not be issued till response supported by the affidavits of government and members of selection committee is brought on record.
“All record pertaining to selection shall be indexed and preserved and kept ready for perusal of the court along with record pertaining to action initated, if any, on receipt of complaints received from aggrieved candidates for probe into irregularities and discrepancies,” Justice Dar said.
The court directed official respondents to file their response in the matter by or before next date of hearing on February 11.
The counsel for petitioners, Advocate M.Y Bhat while raising questions on fairness of the selection process contended that the failure on part of official respondents to constitute a Board in terms of SRO 202 of which reference is found in the Advertisement Notice, for making selection, vitiates the whole process and the participation of the petitioners in the selection process would not make any difference.
He submitted before the court that the official respondents have facilitated mass copying in Centre No. 1171111 where 620 candidates have appeared out of whom 449 were shortlisted for interview wherein 185 candidates have been selected and 39 have been waitlisted.
He pointed out that one of the selectees hailing from Kashmir was permitted to appear in the examination at Jammu though in terms of the Advertisement Notification, he had to appear in the examination at Srinagar. “It clearly reflects the “malafide” intentions of the official respondents.”
Meanwhile, the counsel for respondents, Advocate M A Chashoo submitted that he has prepared the reply which is likely to be filed before the Registry.
“On the basis of record which was provided to by the official respondents, it is evident that there has been no discrepancy in the selection process,” he said.
He also dismissed allegations levelled regarding non-maintenance of backup and videography.
He informed the court that the official respondents had no role in allowing any candidate to appear at a particular center as the applications were submitted online by the candidates.