PSC’s KAS selection process too under the cloud

HC Judgment: Wrongs, if any done in KAS selection, can’t be used to justify illegality of VAS selection

Ahmed Ali Fayyaz

SRINAGAR, May 3: Mr Justice Hakeem Imtiyaz Hussain’s judgment on setting aside Public Service Commission’s illegal selection of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons (VASs) is likely to have a potentially negative impact on the PSC’s recent selection of candidates for Jammu & Kashmir Administrative Service (KAS). Ironically the argument of clubbing of the posts of VASs in two different services of Animal Husbandry Department and Sheep Husbandry Department was projected in High Court by PSC itself with a reference to the Combined Services Examinations in the Administrative Services.

As already reported in this newspaper, Mr Justice Hakeem Imtiyaz Hussain has summarily quashed entire selection of 55 VASs. After conducting the two selection processes almost simultaneously, PSC had issued notification of the final selection of 55 VASs on 07-02-2011 and 392 candidates for Jammu & Kashmir Combined Services, commonly known as KAS, on 17-02-2011. The aggrieved candidates filed a writ petition, SWP No: 310/2011, in J&K High Court and Mr Justice Hasnain Masoodi stayed the recruitment process at the entry level on 23-02-2011. Interestingly the judgment came on the World Veterinary Day on April 29^th.

The private respondents’ counsel, Mr Zaffar Ahmed Shah, and PSC’s attorney, advocate Azhar-ul-Amin (Additional Advocate General), offered arguments in favour of PSC’s act of clubbing 28 vacancies of Animal Husbandry Department and 27 vacancies of Sheep Husbandry Department. During the course of over two-month-long proceedings, defending counsels asserted that there was nothing wrong in clubbing the vacancies when the prescribed qualifications were identical for both the services. They also argued that after utilizing the option of choosing either of the services and participating in the screening tests and the viva voce, the petitioners had no right to seek dismissal of the entire selection process.

The petitioners’ counsel, advocate Altaf Hassan Naik, made a counter-argument that the vacancies of the two different departments could be clubbed in no circumstances until same was provided specifically in Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980. According to him, Animal Husbandry Gazetted Service and Sheep Husbandry Gazetted Service are two different services, having two separate recruit rules. Animal Husbandry Gazetted Service is governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Animal Husbandry (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988, which were made vide SRO-359 of 1988 and which came into force on 1-12-1988. On the other hand, Sheep Husbandry (Gazetted) Service is governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Sheep Husbandry (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1980, which were made vide SRO-119 of 1987 and which came into force on 6-03-1987.

“It was states by the respondents that there was no wrong in combining the vacancies from different services and the Commission has been doing so and has made various selections through this mode. Reference in this behalf has been made to the Combined Services Examinations in the Administrative Services”, Mr Justice Imtiyaz Hussain records in his judgment.

Justice Hussain adds: “I do not find combining of vacancies from entirely different services can be allowed if there is no express provision in the rules notwithstanding the fact that qualification required for the posts is the same. If something wrong has been done, for which there is no provision in the rules, that cannot be used as an example to perpetuate an illegality. In any case, those cases are not before me and it is difficult for me to comment if there was violation of any rules regarding these selections. Respondents, however, cannot take advantage of any illegality, if there is any”.

“Animal Husbandry Service and Veterinary Service are altogether different services with separate cadre strength and method of recruitment for various posts higher than the Assistant Surgeon. The services have got altogether different hierarchy and the very fact that different service recruitment rules have been framed for the two services would show that the two services cannot be mixed up together. Qualifications for the posts at the entry level are same. Technically that may be so but when the appointment is made, the candidate goes to entirely a different service and the two services do not have any connection at all. Keeping in view the different nature of job, even the experts for the interview should be different, having specialization in their respective field. Mixing up of selection processes cannot be allowed on the ground of convenience of the Selection Body”, Justice Hussain records.

“Selection for various posts under Combined Service Rules is entirely a different matter as there are specific rules for the same. Existence of separate rules for this purpose would itself show that vacancies from different services cannot be combined unless the rules contain a specific provision for the same. Since combination of vacancies has rendered the whole process of selection as bad in law, I find the whole process can be set aside on this ground alone and that there is no need to consider other grounds raised in the petition. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the process of selection conducted on Notice 4-6-2010 is set aside”, Justice Hussain records while ordering dismissal of PSC’s entire selection process.

As detailed in a series or reports exclusively in Early Times, a large number of high merit candidates, including top positions holders and 41 toppers in the merit short list out of first 50, had been dropped by the PSC. While as only 9 candidates were selected from the 50 toppers, as many as 46 were picked up from Serial No 51 to Serial No: 210. Clubbing of the vacancies of two different departments facilitated the PSC selectors to invite as many as 210 candidates (1:7 formula) for the interview. Had the process be conducted, as now ordered by High Court, legally---separately for the two departments--- maximum of 105 candidates (1:7 formula) would have appeared in the interview. In that case, PSC selectors would have been left with no choice but to select only the high merit candidates from S No: 1 to S No: 105.

This highly controversial process was conducted by the PSC members, Dr H L Goswami and Khizar Mohammad Wani, who were assisted by the subject expert, namely Dr Hafeez.

END