Conclude selection process for vacant posts in Health deptt: HC to SSB

Srinagar, Feb 01: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Wednesday directed J&K Service Selection Board (SSB) to conclude the selection process for fulfilling 1444 vacant posts in Health and Medical Education (H&ME) department advertised in 2021.
Upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) judgment directing the respondents to proceed further to complete the process of selection and appointment of candidates as per advertisement notice, the court vacated the restraining orders from taking the selection process for fulfilling 1444 vacant posts in the department to the logical end.
A division bench comprising justices Sanjeev Kumar and M.A Chowdhary passed the direction in a plea by Para Medical Staff, who were engaged on academic arrangement basis in H&ME department, challenging an advertisement notice issued by government on March 26, 2021 for fulfilling 1444 vacant posts in the department.
The bench observed that if such appointments, which are made purely as a temporary measure, are regularized and the persons selected are substantively appointed against the posts held by them, it would definitely violate Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The court recorded that Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution ensure equal opportunity to all eligible candidates to participate in selection and make it to the select list on the basis of merit determined in a proper selection process initiated after issuance of a public notification.
Dismissing a plea, the bench declined to quash advertisement notice issued by government with a liberty to the respondents to conclude the selection process initiated vide advertisement notice in 2021.
The court noted that the appointments on daily wage, adhoc or contractual basis followed by their regularization into permanent appointment, is frowned upon by the Courts.
The bench said that the recruitment to the posts held by petitioners is required to be made as per the Recruitment Rules in-vogue, which envisages the selection to be made by the J&K SSB after issuing public notification and conducting fair and transparent selection process ensuring equal opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and participate in the process.
The court recorded that while making the selection of petitioners and others, the selection committee envisaged under Rule 6 of the J&K Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2009 must have invited applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on academic arrangement basis, which was initially for a period of one year extendable upto maximum of six years.
The court observed that many eligible candidates may not have responded to the notice having regard to the nature of appointment offered by the respondents.
“Some of them possibly might have been employed somewhere and for a meagre amount and temporary/contractual appointees would not be ready to jettison their employment for such appointment, which, for all practical purposes, was temporary in nature and terminable after a maximum period of six years,” the bench observed.
It recorded that petitioners were appointed on a contract for a maximum period of six years and continued thereafter, on the strength of the interim direction(s)/orders issued by the court from time to time.
The bench pointed out that the petitioners had executed agreement(s) with the official respondents with their eyes wide open that they would not claim their regularization after completion of the maximum period of their appointment.
“To top it all, the petitioners have also participated in the impugned selection process, however, through intervention of this Court, have succeeded in restraining the respondents from taking it to the logical end,” it pointed out.
The court said, “We also do not find it a case where the writ petitioners after having been appointed on academic arrangement basis have been allowed to continue for a pretty long time that would confer upon them a mantle of permanency.”
The bench underscored that the maximum period of six years for such academic arrangement is statutorily fixed by the 2009 Rules and continuation of the petitioners beyond six years is on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court from time to time.
As a matter of fact, the court said, the official respondents were well within their rights to initiate regular process of selection and make substantive appointments against the posts held by the petitioners even before the expiry of the period of six years and in such situation the petitioners could not have claimed their continuation even for a period of six years.