8-year missing file mystery: SSB conduct rivals Alfred Hitchcock, James Hadley Chase stories: CAT

Srinagar, July 20: For failing to produce records about the selection of Junior Dental Technicians for over eight years now before the court, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has observed the Service Selection Board’s conduct for the “mystery” surrounding the case as “no less than a mystery in James Hadley Chase and Alfred Hitchcock stories”.

The case of an aggrieved candidate, Aarif Sidiq Rah, hinges on the contention that the Service Selection Board (SSB) selected a candidate for the post of Junior Dental Technician, “who never participated in the selection process”.

Rah petitioned in 2017 with the contention that under SSB’s advertisement notification 7 of 2013 for selection of candidates of Junior Dental Technician for the district cadre Srinagar, he applied for the post and was shortlisted for interview in keeping with Rule 1:5, that is, five candidates were shortlisted for interview for the single post.

As per his plea, when the selection list was issued, one candidate, whose selection he is now aggrieved about, was shown to be selected under the Open Merit (OM) category.

The selected candidate, according to Rah’s plea, has not participated in the selection process, either in the written test or the interview.

“Wherefrom she came to be selected,” Rah questions in his plea.

He contends that his name figured at Serial No 1 in the waiting list and he deserved to be selected and appointed for the post.

In multiple orders since 2017, the J&K High Court, where the case initially came up and in the CAT, where the case landed subsequently, the SSB was directed to produce the selection record.

The tribunal in December last year even imposed the costs of Rs 10,000 on the SSB for defiance of its order to produce the record.

According to the court order, six weeks were granted to the board to produce the record, and it didn’t.

In response to an affidavit filed by the SSB on December 27, 2024, revealing that the record of the selection was not traceable, the tribunal said: “It is not understandable that as to where, the record has gone which may compel this court to initiate criminal proceedings to unveil the curtain as regards the availability of the record.”

For not producing the selection record, a bench of M S Latif, Member (J), and Prasant Kumar, Member (A), in its latest order passed on July 16, has disapproved of the defiance and dilatory approach of the SSB to produce the same.

“It appears from the conduct of the respondent – SSRB, that there is a mystery surrounding the case and it is no less than a story one would read in the James Hadley Chase as also in Alfred Hitchcock mysteries,” the court said.

In an apparent displeasure over SSB’s remissness in producing the selection record, the tribunal said the board is required to maintain the record of selection with utmost diligence and secrecy.

The court observed that the senior counsel, who appeared for the selected candidate, filed his response after eight years of chasing.

It said that the response was appended with a publication dated September 30, 2015, issued by the then Secretary of SSB, S A Raina.

In response to a query to the DAG, representing the SSB as to whether such a publication had been published by the SSB or had any mention about it been made by the SSB in their reply, the court said: “He, in all fairness, submitted that there is no mention in the affidavit filed by the SSB about the publication dated September 30, 2015.”

The court said that the DAG was further pointedly asked as to why name of the private respondent No 5 (selected candidate) was not reflected in the notification dated April 8, 2015, whereby the names of the shortlisted candidates, who had qualified the Objective Written Type Test, was published, when otherwise five candidates figured in the said notification.

The court observed that given the reply filed by the selected candidate and annexures appended thereto, it has become expedient and in the interest of justice to seek a fresh affidavit from the SSB as to who authorised the publication of notice dated September 30, 2015, and what were the circumstances which compelled the board to issue such a notice, when in the earlier notice dated April 8, 2015, the name of respondent No 5 (selected candidate) did not figure.

The court noted that things would have been clear if the SSB had produced the record, which, it said, certainly would facilitate the just and fair disposal of the matter.

“But, for whatever reasons, right from the year 2017, when the petition was filed, the respondent, all along, failed to produce the record,” it said.

Meanwhile, the tribunal directed the respondents to complete the inquiry within the stipulated period and submit a copy of the same, in a sealed cover, before this court without fail.

The tribunal at the same time asked the SSB to appraise the court as to whether any FIR was registered as regards the non-availability of record in the office of the board and what administrative action was followed, despite the board knowing the record having been called for by the High Court as also by the tribunal from time to time.

“It is further provided that in case this court finds that a thorough probe is required in the matter by engaging a professional investigating agency of the government to reach a just conclusion, it may do so,” the court said.