Court’s Decision:
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed the petition challenging the selection of a candidate for the position of Laboratory Assistant under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) program. The court held that the appointed candidate’s superior merit justified his selection over the petitioner, despite the petitioner’s claim to local preference. The court emphasized that “preference does not constitute a reservation but merely a tie-breaking factor when merit is equal.” Since the merit of the petitioner was lower than that of the selected candidate, the preference clause was deemed inapplicable, and the petition was dismissed.
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the appointment order dated 10.03.2008, which selected another candidate as a Laboratory Assistant at CHC Marwah, asserting his local residency in District Kishtwar should have granted him priority. The initial notification invited applications for six positions, with preference for local candidates, later expanded to cover Doda, Kishtwar, and Ramban districts, increasing the number of posts to twelve. Following the selection process, the petitioner, who scored lower than the selected candidate, was not chosen.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the petitioner, as a local resident of District Kishtwar, was entitled to preference over the selected candidate, who belonged to District Doda, under the NRHM program’s recruitment criteria.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the position was in CHC Marwah within his home district of Kishtwar and that, as a local candidate, he should have been preferred over the selected candidate from District Doda. He asserted that the advertisement notice designated two posts per district, thus making his claim valid based on local preference.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents contended that the selection was conducted with the policy treating candidates from the erstwhile undivided District Doda as local. They argued that due to superior merit, the selected candidate deserved the position, and no district-specific allocation was prescribed in the advertisement. Further, the petitioner did not even rank in the waiting list, which supported the selection of the other candidate based on merit.
Analysis of the Law:
The court analyzed the legal meaning of “preference” in employment selection, referencing Supreme Court judgments. It clarified that “preference” does not guarantee selection for candidates with higher qualifications or location-based advantages but serves only as a deciding factor if candidates are equally qualified.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referenced Secretary, Health Dept. v. Dr. Anita Puri (1996) and Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu (2003), both of which clarified that preference for local candidates or higher qualifications does not constitute an absolute entitlement, particularly when a candidate’s merit is comparatively lower.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found that the petitioner’s merit score, even excluding the additional marks granted to local candidates, was below that of the appointed candidate. The court concluded that since the petitioner’s merit was inferior, the preference for local candidates did not apply, as preference operates solely when candidates are equally qualified.
Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and the court’s interim order, if any, was vacated. The court underscored that local preference is a non-binding factor unless candidate merit is equivalent.
Implications:
This judgment reinforces the notion that merit-based selection prevails over preferential qualifications or location-based claims. It underscores the court’s stance that “preference” should not override superior qualifications, thus setting a precedent for cases involving employment preferences in government recruitment within local districts.