Srinagar, Feb 3: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that mere selection of a candidate does not entitle him to seek appointment to a particular post nor is a candidate, who finds his name in the select list, entitled to seek a direction upon an authority to conclude the selection process so that the appointment orders are issued in his favour.
Upholding an order issued by District Development Commissioner, Kupwara wherein provisional selection list of 12 candidates as Rehbar-e-Khel for zone Drugmulla in Kupwara district was withdrawn, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the selection was made by an “incompetent” Selection Committee and there were a large number of “misdemeanors” observed in the selection process.
Justice Dhar said that in the instant case, even the selection of the petitioners, who challenged withdrawal of the provisional select list, was yet to be finalized as their selection was provisional in nature subject to the objections.
“Once the official respondents considered the objections, they withdrew the provisional select list,” the court said adding, “the same was well within their competence and jurisdiction particularly in view the fact that the selection was made by an incompetent Selection Committee and there were a large number of misdemeanors observed in the selection process.”
The bench said that petitioners cannot challenge the said action of the official respondents because no right has crystallized in their favour by their mere provisional selection.
Earlier, on January 13, 2018, Youth Services and Sports (YS&S) Department advertised a total number of 223 posts for Rehbar-e-Khel across 13 zones of district Kupwara including for zone Drugmulla.
However, due to nepotism and favoritism on part of the selection committee, the authorities on May 13, 2019 withdrew the provisional selection list of 12 candidates for zone Drugmulla with a direction to initiate a fresh process for engagement against the positions of Rehbar-e-Khel for the said zone.
It was alleged that 06 out of 12 selected candidates are close relatives of certain officers and officials of YS&S department posted in district Kupwara which was confirmed by official respondents.
A document submitted by the official respondents before the court revealed that all these 06 candidates, who are stated to be relatives of the officials of the department, have secured very high marks as compared to the other selected candidates and the candidates who have been rejected.
Taking note of the document, the court said that this clearly gives an impression that the interview committee has been influenced by the officers/officials of the department as a result of which they have awarded higher marks to these six candidates in the interview.
Thus, a genuine doubt is cast on the fairness of the selection process, the bench said.
The bench also noted that the record shows that interviews of the candidates pertaining to Drugmulla zone were not conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee.
The court said that it is an admitted case of the parties that the interview was conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner in place of the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara.
As per Rehbar-e-Khel Scheme, Justice Dhar pointed out that the Selection Committee comprises District Development Commissioner concerned as its Chairman, District Youth Services & Sports Officer as its Member Secretary and District Employment & Counseling Officer and Zonal Physical Education Officer as its members.
“Thus, the interview of the candidates has not been conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee because it was not headed by the Deputy Commissioner,” the bench said.
The court held that without the presence of the Deputy Commissioner, the Committee of the selection members is rendered defective.
Justice Dhar said the authorization issued by the Deputy Commissioner that has been relied upon by the petitioners, would not clothe the Committee with the power to make the selection.
“Even if it is assumed that the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, had issued any such authorization, still then it would not make any difference, as it was not within his competence to delegate his powers to any other officer,” the bench said.
The court ruled that the Deputy Commissioner is not competent to change the constitution of the Selection Committee as laid down under the Scheme formulated in terms of the Cabinet Decision.
“The argument of learned counsel for the
petitioners in this regard is, therefore, without any merit. Thus the provisional select list having been made by an incompetent Selection Committee, could otherwise not have been acted upon,” the bench said while dismissing a plea.
