High Court orders appointment of 151 wireless assistants as constables

Srinagar, Nov 24: In a significant decision, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh Friday ordered appointment of 151 Wireless Assistants as Constables (Operator) on regular basis.

Deciding a batch of appeals and writ petitions related to the recruitment to the posts of Constables (Operators) and Wireless Assistants respectively in the Jammu and Kashmir Police, a division bench of Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Puneet Gupta also ordered appointment of 63 appellants as Wireless Assistants against the resultant 151 vacant posts of Wireless Assistants.

This, the court said, should be subject to their suitability and on attaining the benchmark in terms of the performance in the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement notification issued on March 9, 2007.

Nine appeals were filed against the common judgment and order dated 09.05.2014 passed in twelve Service writ petitions whereby the Single Judge had quashed the selection of the appellants and some others as Constables (Operators).

The issue involved in the appeals related to the validity of the appointments made to the posts of Constables (Operator) based on district-wise select lists as against the contention that the same should have been made based on State level select list as the advertisement did not provide for appointment by preparing district wise merit lists.

In five petitions the judgment and order dated 28.07.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench had been challenged, by which the Tribunal had set aside the Government order dated 10.07.2018 appointing the appellants/petitioners as Wireless Assistants, after their appointments as Constables (Operator) were terminated by the earlier judgment and order dated 09.05.2014 passed in SWP No.1352 of 2010 and batch of writ petitions.

In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners were those, who were earlier appointed as Constables (Operator) whose services were subsequently terminated in terms of the common judgment and order dated 09.05.2014 and batch of writ petitions out of which the present LPAs had arisen and were subsequently appointed as Wireless Assistants vide order dated 10.07.2018. Their appointments as Wireless Assistants were set aside by the CAT vide order dated 28.07.2021. Thus, being aggrieved by the order of the CAT, these petitions were filed impugning the same.

The appellants were initially appointed as Constables (Operator) as per the merit list/select list prepared district-wise, in terms of an advertisement issued on 09.03.2007, whose appointments were successfully challenged by the private respondents in these appeals primarily on the ground that appointments to these posts were to be made on the basis of the select list prepared at the State level and not by preparing district wise select list as had been done.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petitions challenging these appointments vide common judgment and order dated 09.05.2014 passed in SWP No. 1352 of 2010 and batch of writ petitions.

“The appellant stated to be numbering 151 (one fifty-one) and who are presently serving as Wireless Assistants, shall forthwith be appointed as Constables (Operator) on regular basis by adjusting against the 170 (one seventy) vacant posts of Constables (Operator) and their appointments shall be given effect notionally from the date they were initially appointed as Constables (Operator), without any back wages,” the court said in its judgment.

The court held that the “services of those persons who were already appointed as Constables (Operator) after the services of the appellants were terminated vide order dated 19.01.2017 would remain undisturbed and would be en-bloc senior to the appellants in the appeals as the seniority of the Constables (Operator) should be based on the state level merit list which was prepared in terms of the direction issued by the Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 09.05.2014 .

This, the court said, would truly reflect the comparative merit of the candidates, irrespective of the fact that they may be appointed on different dates and in different districts.

In order to avoid any such similar future litigation, the court asked the authorities to clarify the status of the Constable (Operator) as regards “Constable” as provided in the J & K Police Rules, 1960.

In its comprehensive 41 page judgment, the court said:“The private respondents who have continued to pursue their claim till now, stated to be numbering 63, shall be appointed as Wireless Assistants against the resultant 151 (one fifty-one) vacant posts of Wireless Assistants”.

The Court issued these directions after observing that “it is now well settled that direct recruitment is to be normally made after notifying the vacancies by public notification to conform to the requirement of the equal opportunity clause for public employment mandated under Article 16 of the Constitution of India”.

Underscoring that the advertisement has to be, without any exception, in conformity with the service rules or the recruitment rules governing the posts, the Court said: “Thus, the eligibility criteria for posts as per the service rules are to be mentioned in the advertisement so as to enable the aspirant candidates to know the essential requirements while seeking appointments, since no one can be appointed who does not fulfill the essential criteria for the post”.

“The number of posts or vacancies sought to be filled up are to be mentioned, as well as the different categories of reservations, vertical and/or horizontal, if any, in the advertisement,” it said.”The way the recruitment process is to be carried out, must be in conformity with the service rules and if there be any deviation from the service rules, the recruitment process will be vulnerable to impeachment and may be rendered invalid”.