Srinagar: The Jammu Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has quashed the J&K Police’s selection list of Sub-Inspector (Executive and Armed) issued by the Director General of Police, J&K, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 30 December, 2016.
The bench of Rakesh Sagar Jain and Anand Mathur recorded that the fallacy in the selection procedure adopted by the official respondents can be best demonstrated by the fact that 275 vacancies were advertised in the Executive wing in open merit whereas 310 persons have been selected.
“As per official respondents, the extra selection of 35 candidates is against other categories in which vacancies have been correspondingly reduced. Thus, the procedure adopted by the official respondents is in violation of the settled law that ‘the entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category’,” the bench said.
The bench recorded that the selection list of the Sub Inspector (Executive and Armed) in J&K Police has not been prepared in accordance with rules and settled law and the validity of the selection lists prepared in pursuance to advertisement notice No. Pers-A-400/2016/75303-403 dated 30-12-2016 cannot be upheld.
“Therefore, we direct Jammu and Kashmir government to prepare the selection list afresh in accordance with law and rules as early as possible,” the bench directed.
Earlier, a plea filed by eight persons had sought quashing of the selection and appointment of 35 sub-inspectors on the ground that they were illegally, arbitrary and unjustifiably selected.
The applicants also sought a direction to the official respondents to consider and consequently treat the petitioners as selected/appointed against the post of Sub Inspectors (Executive/Armed) in J&K Police and consequently grant the petitioners all service benefits with retrospective effect.
The case of the applicants was that the selection of the respondents disturbed the category-wise breakup of posts as notified in the advertisement. It was contended that the quota meant for the petitioners was given to the private respondents named in the case.