Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Sept 7: The High Court today reprimanded the Services Selection Board (SSB) for its lackadaisical approach in implementing the final judgment with regard to long pending selection of Assistant Information Officers (AIOs) and sought personal appearance of Chairman (SSB) before the court on the next date of hearing.
The Division Bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul expressed serious concern for not implementing the final judgment passed way back in 2013 and directed the Chairman SSB to remain personally present before the court on Thursday to explain his position.
Court was hearing a contempt petition seeking implementation of DB verdict whereby the court had declared the selection process of 29 Assistant information officers by SSB as invalid. The High Court had directed the recruitment board to expeditiously conclude the process of selection for the posts of Assistant Information Officers fresh and report the court in the shape of status report.
The DB today said the Board has taken eight long months to see the result of the representations, which amounts to delay in implementation of the direction passed by this Court. “Delay itself amounts to contempt of the Court. Court is not satisfied with the approach adopted by the respondents for implementation of the order, therefore, the Chairman, Service Selection Board, shall appear in person before the Court on the next date of hearing, viz 09.09.2021”, the DB directed.
The HC after perusal of the latest status report filed by the SSB said it revealed that the Board had conducted the written examination on 20.12.2020, and no further progress is shown except reference is made of some representations of candidates regarding the answer key, which is referred to the Committee of experts.
Aggrieved candidates had challenged the 2013 selection list issued by SSB by way of a writ petition and after discussing various aspects of the case, the writ court in its judgment had concluded that prejudice to petitioners due to the change in criteria in the middle of the selection process and methodology on the date of the Aptitude test and interview held by the Board on October 2011.
The writ court while holding the selection process invalid had observed that the Board has sidelined the merit in the qualifying examination, as no credit has been given to higher qualification. The writ court had directed the SSB to finalize the process of selection with promptitude of the eligible candidates who have applied in response to three advertisement notices issued in the year 2006, 2008 and 2010 inviting application for the posts of Assistant Information Officer Grade-II and thereafter the board issued a provisional selection list on 21 January 2012 which has been nullified by the court.
The writ court in this connection had asked the board first to constitute the committees as required in terms of law (Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 2010) and fix the criteria in tune with Rule 14 of the Rules of 2010. Subsequently, the SSB issued a provisional selection list on 21 January 2012.
The writ court judgment has been challenged before and the division bench in May 2013 had upheld the single bench verdict about the invalidity of provisional selection of 29 AIOs and had directed the recruiting agency to proceed with the selection process afresh in conformity with the rules.
“When the provisional selection list offends the rules, then to continue with the process shall not be permissible because process initiated is a base for follow up, when base is shaken, follow up shall be in-consequential,” the division bench has ruled while disposing of appeals against the single bench order.
It is to be mentioned here that authorities did not stop here and approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP challenging therein the High Court verdicts and the Supreme Court on February 20, 2017, also dismissed the appeal of the State Government and upheld the judgments of high court in which provisional selection of 29 Assistant Information officers issued by the Board has been held as invalid.
“We do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned order(s). The special leave petitions (SLPs) are accordingly dismissed,” the Supreme Court said while dismissing SLP filed by the Government.
Follow our WhatsApp channel