HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU SWP No. 54/2009 Date of Decision: 06.07.2011 CMP No.62/2009 ____________________________________________ Nazia Kulsoom v. State of J&K & ors. Coram: Mr. Justice J.P.Singh. Appearing Counsel: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.N. Goja, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate. i) Whether approved for reporting in Press/Media : Yes/No. ii) Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal : Yes/No. __________________________________________________ The Jammu and Kashmir Khadi and Village Industries Board invited applications vide Advertisement Notice No.KVIB/1 of 2008 dated 04.06.2008, inter alia, to fill up the posts of Orderlies. Ms. Nazia Kulsoom, the petitioner, who was working with the Board as Orderly on contractual basis, responded to the Notification. She along with others was interviewed by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose; but before the selection process could be finalized, the Khadi and Village Industries Board, issued yet another Advertisement Notice vide its No.KVIB/2 of 2008 dated November 17, 2008 inviting fresh applications for the posts of Orderlies. Those who had already 2 applied pursuant to the Advertisement Notice of June 04, 2008 had not to apply afresh. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition questioning the second Notification, besides seeking directions against the respondents not to discontinue her engagement as Orderly. In its Response to the Writ Petition, the Jammu and Kashmir Khadi and Village Industries Board justifies the questioned Advertisement Notice, saying that the necessity for issuing the Notification had arisen because the process of selection was faulty, in that, the Board had not fixed any criteria for selection of candidates before initiation of the Selection process, and that the second Notification had been issued after remedying the defect noticed in the earlier Selection process and issuing requisite criteria for the Selection. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. The plea projected by the Board justifying the abandonment of the earlier Selection process noticing that no selection criteria was fixed before initiating the Selection process and issuance of fresh Notification after formulating requisite criteria, remains un-controverted, as nothing has been brought on records by the petitioner to contest the factual statement of the Board that absence of any selection criteria for 3 selection of Orderlies had necessitated the discontinuance of the earlier Selection process. In this view of the matter, the action of the Board abandoning the earlier Selection process and initiating fresh process for selection of Orderlies after formulating requisite criteria therefor, looked from any angle, cannot be said to be arbitrary, as projected by the petitioner’s learned counsel, in that, no employer can be compelled to continue with a Selection process, which suffered from inherent defect of there being no criteria to adjudge the suitability of the candidates for the advertised posts. Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as 1998 (1) SCT 194 referred to by the petitioner’s learned counsel has no application to the facts of the present case and cannot, therefore, be of any help to the petitioner. The prayer made by the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents not to discontinue her services as Orderly too is found untenable, in that, neither any basis has been laid in the Writ Petition justifying issuance of such directions nor can such a direction, in the facts and circumstances, be otherwise issued against the respondents, in that, the petitioner’s continuance on contractual basis would not vest any enforceable right in her to seek perpetuation of her contractual engagement with the Board. 4 The petitioner’s Writ Petition, therefore, lacks substance and is, accordingly, dismissed. (J.P. SINGH) JUDGE JAMMU 06.07.2011 Vinod.