HC says reservation law not followed, directs CS to take measures

Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Sept 4: The Division Bench of High Court today expressed anguish and disappointment with regard to carrying out reservations of posts while making selection by the UT Government and erstwhile State administration and asked the Chief Secretary to take measures for following the reservations law correctly.
High Court was dealing with a case whereby three persons were aggrieved by keeping four posts under SC category unfilled by the authorities. Three candidates under SC category, who were next in the order of merit after one candidate was placed at serial No.1 in the wait list of SC category and were seeking quashing of the select list to the extent it placed them in the wait list instead of select list of SC category.
“We want to place on record our anguish and disappointment with the manner in which the respondents Union Territory and its predecessor, the State of J&K has been carrying out the reservation”, Division Bench observed in the judgment.
The DB said that none of the departments have maintained Reservation Register as per the details contained in the Reservation Rules of 2005 nor have they clearly and correctly maintained the reservation roster. “Each time the vacancies become available and are to be referred to the selecting body, the reservation roster is usually started from one and in doing so, the candidates belonging to some of the reservation categories are deprived of their full quota”, reads the judgment.
“We hope and trust that the Chief Secretary would take not of the observations we have made and take appropriate measures to ensure that the reservation laws are correctly followed and those for whom the benefit of reservation is envisaged are not deprived of the benefit”, DB directed.
The vacancies, court added, arising in the cadre, after the initial posts are filled, will pose no difficulty as and when there is a vacancy whether permanent or temporary in a particular post, court said, the same has to be filled up from amongst the category to which the post belonged in the roster.
Referring the Supreme Court on such kind of issue, DB finds no reason as to why the law laid down in by the apex court cannot be made applicable to the employees in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, more so, when we could not find anything contrary contained either in the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 or the Rules framed thereunder.
Court however, not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Writ Court because of deficient and incomplete pleadings in the case and also for the reason that the candidates, who were writ petitioners in basic case have accepted the judgment and have chosen not to assail the same. “The appellants herein, who were not the writ petitioners cannot be permitted to plead for the first time in appeal and piggyback on the pleadings in the writ petition filed by the other candidates”, court said.
Court on not following the reservation laws by the administration said, it gives ample opportunity to corrupt officials in the government to manipulate diversion of quota to either benefit or deprive somebody of the benefit of reservation. “This is an area, which needs attention of the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory. There ought to a periodical audit/check of each department to find out as to whether the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 and the Rules framed thereunder have been carried out in letter and spirit or not and also to ensure that each department maintains roster register to keep the running account of the vacancies from 11 year to year”, reads the judgment.
Court on exhausting of roster points in a cadre and achieving of the quota prescribed by the Rules for reserved category said, subsequent vacancies be filled up from the categories to which the position belonged in the roster.
“It is only in case of non-availability of reserved candidates at the roster point that point can be carried forward as provided in Rule 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules of 2005”, Court clarified.