Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Balwant Raj vs D/O Higher Education Ut Of J&K on 11 December, 2025
:: 1 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 1411/2020
Reserved on: - 12.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 11.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Balwant Raj S/o Sh. Sardari Lal R/o Bhatyari Katlan, Tehsil and
District Samba, aged 29years.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Ms. Surinder Kaur Sr. Adv with Ms. Manpreet)
Versus
1)State of J&K, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of J&K, Civil
Secretariat, Srinagar.
2) Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt., Higher Education
Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
3) Director Higher Education, Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020
4) J&K Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, Polo
Ground, Srinagar.
5) Chairman, J&K Public Service Commission, Polo Ground,
Srinagar.
6) Secretary, J&K Public Service Commission, Polo Ground,
Srinagar.
7)Deputy Secretary, J&K Public Service Commission, Polo Ground,
Srinagar.
8) Om Parkash S/o Sh. Amar Nath R/o Sh. Lal Chand VLW, W. No.
14, Near New ITI, Udhampur, J&K.
9)Bishan Dass S/o Sh. Shouku Ram R/o VPO Marheen, Tehsil
Hiranagar, District Kathua.
10) Kiran Prabhta D/o Sh. Tej Ram R/o Village Gaan Morer, Tehsil
Reasi, District Udhampur
11) Surinder Madhyal S/o Sh. Shamir Chand R/o H. No.114, W. No.
16, Near Shiv Mandir, Lower Shiv Nagar, Kathua.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020
12) Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ravi Parshad R/o W. No.4, Krishna
Colony, College Road, Kathua.
13) Ram Paul S/o Sh. Nago Ram R/o Patel Nagar, Near District Sheep
Husbandry, Kathug Tehsil and District Kathua.
14) Gurpreet Singh S/o S. Jaswant Singh R/o VPO Nonial, Tehsil
Nowshera, District Rajouri.
15) Dev Raj S/o Sh. Krishan Chand R/o Village Raghu Náth Pura, P.
O. Haripur, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua.
16) Virender Kumar S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal R/o Village Londi, P. O.
Sherpur, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua..
...Respondents
(Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thapa, AAG and Mr. F A Natnoo)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 892/2008 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/1411/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court with following prayer:
a) to quash the Select List dated 13.06.2008 for the posts of Lecturers 10+2 Chemistry in School Education Department, issued by respondent No.6, Secretary, J&K Public Service Commission, published in English Newspaper "Daily Excelsior" in its edition dated June 14, 2008, by which the respondents have selected private respondent Nos.8 to 16 in SC Category, including respondent No.14 Gurpreet Singh whose name did not figure in the list of candidates who have been called for interview, by issuance of writ of certiorari; and
b) to issue direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for selection/appointment against the available vacant post of Lecturer 10+2 Chemistry in School Education Department, as the petitioner is qualified, more meritorious, and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 fully eligible and entitled for selection to the post of Lecturer in SC Category, by issuance of writ of mandamus; and
c) to issue direction to the respondents restraining them to implement the Select list dated 13.06.2008 by which the respondents have selected private respondent Nos.8 to 16 in SC Category, including respondent No.14 Gurmeet Singh whose name did not figure in the list of candidates who have been called for interview and restraining the respondents to issue appointment orders in favour of the selected candidates and restraining the respondents to adjust/appoint any person against the vacant posts of Lecturers, by issuance of writ of prohibition;
and
d) to issue direction to the respondents to produce the entire selection record before this Hon'ble Court by which the respondents have selected the candidates for the posts of Lecturers 10+2 Chemistry in School Education Department, by issuance of writ of mandamus; and
e) to declare the Select List dated 13.06.2008 by which the respondents have selected private respondent No4 in SC Category, to the post of Lecturer 10+2 (Chemistry) in School HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 Education Department whose name did not figure in the list of candidates who have been called for interview, as unconstitutional, ultra-vires and contrary to the provisions of principles of natural justice by issuance of writ of mandamus; and
f) Any other appropriate writ, order or directions as the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
a) The petitioner is a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir and a respectable citizen of India. He belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category and is fully entitled to the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Part III of the Constitution, including Articles 14 and 16. The petitioner is a highly qualified individual, possessing M.Sc. in Chemistry and B.Ed, and has also rendered two years of teaching experience on contractual basis in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Samba, thereby acquiring necessary academic and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 professional competence required for the post of Lecturer 10+2 (Chemistry).
b) The grievance raised in the present petition has its genesis in a series of recruitment notifications issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (PSC) for the post of Lecturer 10+2 (Chemistry) in the School Education Department. The PSC first issued Advertisement Notification No. 14-PSC of 2003 dated 14.10.2003, inviting applications from eligible candidates for the said post. The petitioner, being fully eligible under the SC category, submitted his application.
However, for reasons not disclosed or explained anywhere on record, the respondents did not conduct any screening test or interview process pursuant to the said advertisement.
c) Thereafter, the PSC again notified the same posts through Advertisement Notification No. 14-PSC of 2005 dated 20.09.2005. The petitioner, once again fulfilling all eligibility parameters and belonging to the reserved SC category, applied under the said notification as well. Surprisingly, this time also, no screening test or interview was conducted by the PSC, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 leaving the petitioner's candidature unattended and the advertised posts unfilled.
d) The PSC again issued Advertisement Notification No. 02-PSC of 2006 dated 17.01.2006, inviting applications afresh for the very same post. The petitioner, who had already applied in the previous two notifications, again submitted his application under the SC category, making him a candidate for consideration in all three recruitment cycles. The petitioner, therefore, consistently remained an eligible and willing applicant through all the three notifications issued over a span of three years.
e) After prolonged inaction of more than four years, the PSC ultimately issued Notice dated 07.04.2008, shortlisting candidates for interview with respect to the above three advertisements. In the said notice, the petitioner's name figured at Serial No. 159, and the date of interview assigned to him was 23.04.2008. The petitioner duly appeared in the said interview on the scheduled date and performed satisfactorily as per his academic qualification, subject knowledge and prior teaching experience.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 9 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020
f) Prior to the interview, the PSC, for reasons of restricting the
interviewees in the ratio of 1:3, issued two Notices dated 15.04.2008, whereby the candidature of ten candidates, who had obtained 70 marks in the Screening Test and had tied on the same marks, was cancelled. Their names were dropped despite being earlier shortlisted vide notice dated 07.04.2008. The name of the petitioner, however, continued in the list of interviewees as he was not amongst the cancelled candidates. The petitioner therefore legitimately believed that he was being duly considered on merit in accordance with law.
g) Thereafter, the PSC issued Select List dated 13.06.2008, published in the English Daily "Daily Excelsior" on 14.06.2008, selecting private respondents 8 to 16 under the SC category for the post of Lecturer 10+2 (Chemistry). However, the petitioner was shocked to notice that the select list contained names of persons who were neither shortlisted for interview, nor appeared in the screening test, nor were exempted from the same. Candidates whose names were absent from both the interview list dated 07.04.2008 and the exclusion list dated 15.04.2008, were included in the final select list, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 rendering the entire process arbitrary, opaque and violative of settled norms of public employment.
h) One of the glaring examples is the case of Gurpreet Singh (Respondent No.14). His name did not appear:
in the screening test list, in the exemption list of candidates possessing higher qualification, in the shortlisting notice dated 07.04.2008, or in the cancellation notices dated 15.04.2008. Despite complete absence from the entire pre-selection process, he was mysteriously selected in the final list. This singular fact alone demonstrates gross irregularity, procedural impropriety, favouritism, and violation of principles of natural justice.
i) The petitioner further submits that the PSC had notified the cut-
off marks for SC category for the three advertisements as under:
64 marks for Notification No. 14-PSC of 2003 44 marks for Notification No. 14-PSC of 2005 44 marks for Notification No. 02-PSC of 2006 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020
j) The petitioner had secured 64 marks, thereby fulfilling the highest cut-off for the earliest advertisement as well as exceeding the lower cut-offs for the subsequent notifications.
Despite meeting the eligibility and merit criteria across all three advertisements, the petitioner was not selected in any of the select lists.
k) Meanwhile, candidates such as Om Parkash and Bishan Dass, who had also applied under all three advertisements like the petitioner, and whose merit was inferior to that of the petitioner, were selected. The petitioner was therefore singled out and treated differently without any justification, despite possessing superior academic qualifications, professional training and teaching experience.
l) Under Rule 7 of SRO 294 of 2005, the PSC is mandated to prepare a consolidated merit list of all eligible candidates irrespective of category, and then classify them category-wise. The rule requires that such a list must be drawn in order of merit based on transparent criteria. In the present case, the PSC did not prepare any such consolidated merit list. No record of academic merit, interview marks, item-wise distribution or HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 criteria was published or made available. The entire selection was finalized without any merit list, which is a gross violation of statutory mandate and renders the selection wholly unsustainable.
m) The material on record also shows that the respondents awarded disproportionately low marks in the viva voce to meritorious candidates, including the petitioner, solely to eliminate them from the zone of selection. The selection appears to have been made exclusively on viva voce, without balancing academic merit, experience or objective criteria. It is a settled principle of law that excessive weightage to viva voce renders the selection arbitrary and susceptible to manipulation. The petitioner was thus denied fair assessment on objective parameters despite possessing higher merit and experience.
n) The select list dated 13.06.2008 does not disclose the marks awarded to any candidate, nor does it indicate the criteria applied for awarding marks. The absence of transparency-- keeping merit "top secret"--casts a shadow on the genuineness of the selection. In a fair recruitment process, the respondents are duty-bound to disclose the criteria and marks; failure to do HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 so makes the process arbitrary, opaque and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
o) The petitioner, who was fully eligible, technically trained, more meritorious, and had applied under all three notifications spanning 2003 to 2006, has been deliberately ignored by the respondents without any rational basis. The selection of candidates who were never interviewed or even considered at the screening stage, and the rejection of the petitioner despite superior merit, is reflective of patent arbitrariness, favouritism, non-application of mind and colourable exercise of power.
p) The petitioner is further prejudiced by the fact that he is now becoming over-age, and the arbitrary denial of his rightful claim for consideration has effectively extinguished his opportunity for public employment. The respondents, by denying fair and lawful consideration to the petitioner, have violated constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 as well as the statutory provisions governing recruitment.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 14 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020
a) The respondents submit that the petitioner was one of the
candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category who participated in the selection process for the post of Lecturer 10+2 (Chemistry). After participating in the due process of selection, the petitioner could not secure sufficient merit and was, therefore, not found suitable for recommendation.
b) The respondents state that the petitioner has questioned his non-
selection primarily on the grounds that:
he had qualified the screening test and secured 64 marks; although three notifications were issued, he was not selected against any of them; and he claims to be more meritorious than some selected candidates.
c) In response, the respondents submit that mere eligibility or qualification in the screening test does not confer any legal or fundamental right to appointment. The marks obtained in the screening test are not considered at the time of interview. The purpose of the screening test is only to shortlist candidates from HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 a large pool so that a manageable number of candidates may be interviewed. This is a well-settled principle in law.
d) According to the respondents, once the petitioner qualified the screening test under the SC category and secured 64 marks, the only right that accrued to him was the right of consideration in the interview, which was duly granted. The petitioner appeared in the interview on 23.04.2008 and was assessed by an expert board on all relevant parameters, including qualification, academic merit, teaching experience and other special attributes. Therefore, there is no violation of any right, as the petitioner was duly and fairly considered.
e) The respondents further contend that the petitioner, having participated in the entire selection process without objection, is now estopped from challenging the process, in view of the Doctrine of Estoppel.
f) The petitioner, in order to substantiate his claim and expose irregularities, filed an application dated 14.02.2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2009 seeking the complete result of the Screening Test for the post of Lecturer 10+2 (Chemistry) conducted pursuant to the three notifications of 2003, 2005, and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 2006. In response, the Additional Secretary (PIO), J&K Public Service Commission, vide letter No. PSC/RTI/2012/40 dated 15.06.2012, furnished the information along with the name-
wise and marks-wise list of all candidates who appeared in the screening test. Significantly, the name of respondent No. 14, Gurpreet Singh, does NOT appear in the said screening test list.
g) The petitioner again sought information under RTI vide application dated 27.08.2012. PSC, vide letter No. PSC/RTI/2012/40 dated 19.09.2012, supplied a copy of Notice dated 07.04.2008, showing the number of posts advertised in 2003, 2005 and 2006, Category-wise cut-off marks and a list of candidates who appeared in the Screening Test. However, the respondents deliberately supplied only roll numbers and parents' names, avoiding disclosure of candidate names, thereby concealing the identity of selected candidate(s) such as respondent No. 14, who never appeared in the screening test.
h) The petitioner placed on record before this Court the RTI Letter No. PSC/RTI/2012/40 dated 15.06.2012, along with the complete name-wise/marks-wise list of all candidates who HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 appeared in the screening test for the posts of Lecturer 10+2 (Chemistry) and RTI Letter No. PSC/RTI/2012/40 dated 19.09.2012, along with a copy of Notice dated 07.04.2008 and related documents.
i) These documents are essential for the just, fair, and complete adjudication of the pending writ petition SWP No. 892/2008, Balwant Raj vs. State of J&K & Ors. The documents clearly establish that respondent No. 14 was never screened, never shortlisted, never interviewed, and yet was illegally selected, which strikes at the root of the selection process.
j) The applicant submits that although the selection of certain private respondents--especially respondent No. 14 who never appeared in screening or interview--was illegal and contrary to the recruitment rules, the petitioner does not at this stage seek the quashing of the entire select list, because the selected candidates have now been serving for many years and cannot be penalized for the illegal acts of the Public Service Commission.
k) It is a well-settled principle that where the passage of time and equities make it impractical to undo an entire selection, the court may mould the relief to ensure justice to the aggrieved HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 candidate without disturbing the settled rights of others. In similar cases Hon'ble Apex court in Asha Kaul v. State of J&K, (1993) 2 SCC 573 has held that When selected candidates have already joined long ago, courts may mould relief without disturbing their appointments.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Upon consideration of the pleadings, documents and submissions of the parties, the following issues arise for determination:
Whether the selection of respondent No. 14, who did not participate in the screening test or interview, is valid and sustainable in law?
Whether the petitioner, who possessed higher merit and eligibility and had participated in all stages of the recruitment process pursuant to the notifications of 2003, 2005 and 2006, was unfairly excluded due to procedural irregularities committed by the Public Service Commission?
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 19 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020
Whether, in view of the long passage of time and the fact that the selected candidates have been in service for several years, the select list dated 13.06.2008 should be quashed? Whether, in the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner is entitled to any equitable relief including notional seniority, notional date of appointment or other consequential benefits?
7. While going through the records we have find the following issues for adjudication in the present case. RTI replies and record produced reveal that respondent No. 14 did not figure in the screening test list, shortlisting notice or interview schedule. His selection was made without undergoing the prescribed selection process. Such an appointment is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The petitioner secured 64 marks and satisfied the cut-off for all three notifications. As per SRO 294 of 2005, PSC was required to prepare a consolidated merit list, which was admittedly not done. Lack of transparency and deviation from prescribed criteria unfairly deprived the petitioner of due consideration. Selected candidates, except respondent No. 14, have been in service since 2008. They were not at fault and cannot be penalized for PSC's lapses. The petitioner has meanwhile been selected in a subsequent selection process. Quashing HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 the entire selection after 15 years would create administrative chaos and cause injustice to those in service.
8. Where illegality is established but reinstatement or quashing the whole selection is impractical, the courts mould the relief. Petitioner is entitled to notional appointment, notional seniority, and notional pay fixation, without disturbing existing employees or granting monetary arrears. We have considered the following judgments which address issues analogous to those involved in the present matter.
9. The selection of a candidate who has not participated in the mandatory stages of the recruitment process is ex facie illegal and void ab initio. It stands conclusively established that Respondent No.14 neither appeared in the screening test, nor was he ever shortlisted, nor did he participate in the interview. Despite this, he has been included in the final select list. Such an action strikes at the very foundation of the selection process and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, held that appointment of a candidate who has not undergone the prescribed selection process amounts to a fraud on public employment and is nullity in law. Similarly, in Rajasthan Public Service HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 21 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 Commission v. Kaila Devi, (2015) 5 SCC 730, the Court reiterated that a candidate not subjected to the mandatory screening stages cannot be declared successful. The principle was further affirmed in Meghalaya Public Service Commission v. State of Meghalaya, where the Court held that bypassing essential stages of recruitment violates Articles 14 and 16. Applying these settled principles, the selection of Respondent No.14--who never appeared in the screening test or interview--is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and wholly unsustainable.
10. In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that a candidate who has not undergone the prescribed stages of the selection process cannot be appointed. Such an appointment is inherently arbitrary and violates the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16.
11. In Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that where the selection process is tainted, unfair, lacks transparency, or is conducted in violation of prescribed norms, the entire selection is liable to be quashed in its entirety.
12. In Raj Kishore Nanda v. Government of Orissa, (2010) 6 SCC 777, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the selection of a person who has not participated in all mandatory stages of the recruitment HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 22 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 process is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
13. On the issue of non-consideration of Screening Test marks, it is evident that the Public Service Commission has acted in contravention of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of SRO 294 of 2005. The Rule requires the PSC to prepare a consolidated merit list based on all components of assessment--academic merit, experience, screening test, and interview. Preparation of such a combined merit list is a statutory obligation and not a matter of discretion. However, in the present case, the PSC has failed to prepare any consolidated merit list and has ignored the Screening Test marks altogether, thereby subverting the very basis of comparative merit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512, held that selection cannot be sustained when mandatory components of the evaluation process are either ignored or unlawfully altered. Similarly, in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417, it was held that transparency in evaluation and disclosure of criteria is an essential facet of Articles 14 and 16. Non- preparation of the statutory merit list, coupled with exclusion of the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 screening-test performance, renders the entire selection arbitrary, opaque, and unsustainable in law.
14. In Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the selection authority notifies a particular criteria or method of evaluation, it is bound to adhere to it, and any failure to follow the notified criteria renders the entire selection process arbitrary, unfair, and legally unsustainable.
15. In U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the statutory rules prescribe a particular selection procedure, the Public Service Commission has no authority to deviate from or dilute the mandatory process. Any departure from the procedure laid down in the Rules vitiates the entire selection and renders it unsustainable in law.
16. We further find that the Public Service Commission has acted in clear breach of the mandatory provisions contained in SRO 294, thereby rendering the entire selection process legally unsustainable. The statutory mandate requires a balanced and transparent evaluation of candidates; however, the PSC has disproportionately emphasized the viva-voce component, contrary to settled legal principles that excessive reliance on interviews is arbitrary and violative of Articles HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 24 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The record demonstrates that the PSC awarded unusually high and uneven viva-voce marks, suppressed the academic merit of the petitioner, and manipulated interview scores in a manner that effectively eliminated him from fair consideration. Such a process is constitutionally impermissible, lacks transparency, and fails to ensure equal opportunity in public employment.
17. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that viva-voce cannot be assigned disproportionate or dominant weightage, as it opens the door to arbitrariness and subjective manipulation, thereby offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
18. In Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where viva-voce is used to overshadow or nullify academic merit, the selection becomes unconstitutional and must be struck down as arbitrary and irrational.
19. The record demonstrates that the petitioner possessed superior academic merit and higher objective scores as compared to several selected candidates. However, he was eliminated solely due to arbitrary inflation of viva-voce marks granted to others and corresponding suppression of his own viva score. Such manipulation HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 25 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 of viva-voce, which has a limited and supplementary role in the evaluation process, has the effect of completely overriding established academic merit. This practice has been repeatedly condemned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia, Lila Dhar and Ashok Kumar Yadav, wherein it has been held that disproportionate or manipulative use of viva-voce violates Articles 14 and 16. The elimination of the petitioner on the strength of distorted viva-voce marks is therefore unconstitutional, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
20. The plea of the respondents that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection merely because he participated in it is misconceived and legally untenable. It is well-settled that a candidate is not precluded from questioning the legality of a selection process after participating in it, where the challenge is based on allegations of procedural illegality, arbitrariness, manipulation or violation of statutory rules. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to sustain an otherwise illegal or unconstitutional selection. Participation does not validate an unlawful process. Therefore, the objection to maintainability is rejected.
21. In K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a candidate is not estopped from challenging HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 26 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 a selection process after participation when the challenge pertains to illegality, arbitrariness or violation of notified criteria. Participation does not validate an unlawful procedure.
22. In Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that participation in the process does not bar a candidate from assailing the selection if the procedure adopted is illegal or contrary to the rules. The doctrine of estoppel cannot cure a fundamentally flawed process.
23. In Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that estoppel applies only where the selection process is fair, transparent and in accordance with law. Where the process is illegal, arbitrary or manipulated, the principle of estoppel has no application, and the candidate retains the right to challenge the entire selection.
24. Applying the above legal principles, it is evident that the petitioner is fully entitled to challenge the impugned selection notwithstanding his participation. The material on record establishes that the selection process was tainted by illegality, manipulation, violation of statutory rules, and arbitrary award of viva-voce marks. In such circumstances, the doctrine of estoppel has no application. A candidate cannot be HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 27 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 compelled to accept an unconstitutional process merely because he participated in it. Since the process itself is fundamentally flawed, the petitioner's challenge is maintainable and fully justified.
25. It is further established that candidates possessing inferior academic merit, lower objective scores, and lesser credentials have been preferred over the petitioner, who had markedly higher merit and fulfilled all eligibility requirements. The selection of candidates with demonstrably lower merit, while excluding a more meritorious and eligible candidate, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Public employment must be based on objective assessment of merit, fairness, and equality of opportunity. Any process which sidelines a superior candidate and elevates those with inferior merit cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is liable to be struck down.
26. In Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that favouring less meritorious candidates and ignoring objectively superior candidates strikes at the core of fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity in public employment. Any manipulation that results in displacement of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 28 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 meritorious candidates violates Articles 14 and 16 and renders the entire selection unconstitutional.
27. In Union of India v. N. Radhakrishnan, (1998) 4 SCC 154, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the State and its instrumentalities must select only the best candidates strictly on merit. Any deviation from merit-based selection, whether through arbitrary evaluation or non-transparent procedures, is violative of constitutional equality and cannot be sustained.
28. The refusal of the Public Service Commission to disclose the merit lists, detailed evaluation criteria, and marks awarded to the candidates, including those finally selected, strikes at the foundational principles of transparency and fairness that govern public recruitment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 8 SCC 484, held that non-disclosure of the criteria and marks undermines fairness and vitiates the selection. Similarly, in UPSC v. M. Sathiya Priya, (2018) 15 SCC 796, the Court emphasized that transparency, publication of marks, and disclosure of the selection rationale are indispensable to ensure equality and prevent arbitrariness. The guiding constitutional principle laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 29 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 405, mandates that all administrative actions must be fair, transparent, and capable of being scrutinized. The PSC's deliberate withholding of the complete merit list, screening test marks, and interview marks creates an opaque process, prevents verification of fairness, enables manipulation, and violates Articles 14 and 16. Such non-disclosure coupled with the absence of a consolidated merit list, renders the entire selection process illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed in its entirety.
29. The law on transparency in public recruitment is unequivocally settled. In Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC 268, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Public Service Commission is duty-bound to disclose marks and follow transparent procedures, as secrecy in evaluation breeds arbitrariness and violates Articles 14 and
16. This principle was emphatically reaffirmed in Prakash Chand Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 8 SCC 484, wherein the Court held that absence of transparency--particularly non-disclosure of marks, criteria, and merit lists--vitiates the entire selection process. Thus, withholding of marks and criteria by the PSC in the present case renders the selection wholly arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 30 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020
30. The RTI material placed on record incontrovertibly demonstrates that Respondent No.14 does not figure in the screening test list, the shortlist of candidates eligible for interview, or even in the cut-off list. Despite not participating in any mandatory stage of the recruitment process, he has been shown as finally selected. This constitutes a blatant deviation from the prescribed procedure and a grave illegality striking at the very foundation of the selection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu, (2005) 7 SCC 177, has categorically held that where official records reveal a departure from mandatory rules, the entire selection is vitiated and must be quashed. Applying this settled principle, the documentary evidence obtained through RTI squarely establishes that the selection of Respondent No.14 is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and cannot be sustained.
31. It is a settled principle that the Public Service Commission is strictly bound by the terms of its own recruitment notification and cannot act in derogation of the procedure it has itself prescribed. In Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Mandve, (2001) 10 SCC 51, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that recruitment must conform rigidly to the notified criteria, and any deviation or alteration renders the entire selection HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 31 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 void. This principle flows from the constitutional mandate laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, (1979) 3 SCC 489, wherein the Apex Court held that the State and its instrumentalities are prohibited from departing from the declared procedure, as such deviation amounts to arbitrariness and violates Article 14. Applying these principles, any act of the PSC that contradicts its own notification or prescribed method of selection is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law.
32. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has now crossed the upper age limit for future participation in the selection process. The illegalities committed by the PSC have thus deprived him of a fair opportunity for employment. In Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where procedural irregularities or arbitrary actions of the authorities result in a qualified candidate being unjustly excluded, and the candidate has since become over-aged, judicial intervention becomes necessary to undo the injustice. Applying this principle, the petitioner cannot be left remediless merely because the illegal process has consumed time and pushed him beyond the permissible age limit. Such circumstances strengthen the case for interference with the impugned selection.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 32 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020
33. The legal position is well-established that when a selection process is tainted by arbitrariness, manipulation, opacity, or deviation from prescribed norms, the entire process must be struck down. In Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the recruitment is vitiated by illegality or unfairness at any stage, the whole selection stands compromised and cannot be allowed to survive. This principle was reiterated in Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 721, wherein it was held that when the integrity of the process is lost, the Court cannot salvage the outcome by separating valid from invalid selections; the entire process must fall. Applying these settled principles, the impugned selection--being arbitrary, opaque, and ridden with procedural violations--is liable to be quashed in its entirety.
34. The petitioner has successfully established that the selection of Respondent No.14 was patently illegal and in violation of the prescribed recruitment procedure. The material on record further shows that the petitioner had consistently met the cut-off in all relevant notifications, possessed higher merit than several selected candidates, and was unjustifiably excluded due to the illegalities HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 33 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 committed by the respondents. These irregularities deprived the petitioner of a timely and fair opportunity for appointment. It is also noted that the petitioner has since secured appointment under a subsequent notification; therefore, reinstatement in the earlier selection cycle or quashing of the select list at this stage is no longer warranted. The findings recorded herein are confined to adjudicating the legality of the impugned process and do not require disturbance of the petitioner's current appointment.
35. Therefore, the applicant prays that he be granted notional appointment to the post of Lecturer 10+2 (Chemistry) from the date on which the private respondents (SC category candidates) were appointed under the 2008 select list, along with corresponding notional seniority in the said cadre and notional fixation of pay with consequential seniority benefits, though without any claim to back wages or arrears so as to avoid financial burden on the State. Grant of such relief does not disturb the appointments of the selected candidates, but merely corrects the illegality committed by the PSC, restores equity in favour of the applicant who was unjustly excluded, and aligns with the constitutional principles of fairness and equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 34 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020
36. The petitioner was unfairly denied equal treatment owing to the glaring irregularities and procedural violations committed by the Public Service Commission. Although the efflux of time and subsequent developments now render it impracticable to reverse or unsettle the entire selection process, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the equity of his rightful position. In the circumstances, while the selection itself may no longer be disturbed, the applicant is fully entitled to restoration of his rights through the grant of notional seniority and all consequential benefits, thereby remedying the injustice caused to him without affecting the existing appointees.
37. The central issue in the present case is whether the petitioner, who was demonstrably more meritorious than several selected candidates and whose exclusion was caused by procedural irregularities committed by the Public Service Commission (PSC), is entitled to relief after a long passage of time during which the selected candidates have continued in service. The RTI material establishes that respondent No.14 did not appear in the screening test, shortlisting notice dated 07.04.2008, cancellation notices dated 15.04.2008, or the interview schedule, yet was selected, rendering his appointment wholly dehors the rules and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The PSC HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 35 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 further failed to comply with Rule 7 of SRO 294 of 2005 by not preparing a consolidated merit list considering academic merit and other parameters, thereby adopting an opaque and unfair procedure which prejudiced the petitioner, who had secured 64 marks and met the cut-off in all three notifications. However, given that more than a decade has passed and except for respondent No.14 the other selected candidates have been continuously serving since 2008 without fault on their part, unsettling their appointments would cause serious injustice and administrative instability. In Asha Kaul v. State of J&K and Rajkumar Sharma, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such circumstances courts must mould the relief without disturbing long-standing appointments and instead compensate the aggrieved candidate through notional benefits. The petitioner has since been appointed as Lecturer 10+2 (Chemistry) under a later notification, rendering reinstatement or quashing of the earlier selection unnecessary; what survives is the loss of seniority and career progression suffered due to the PSC's irregularities. Consistent with the principles in S.S. Uppal and Paluru Ramakrishnaiah, the appropriate course is to grant the petitioner notional appointment, seniority and pay fixation from the date candidates lower in merit in HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 36 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 the SC category were appointed, thereby rectifying the injustice without disturbing existing appointees and ensuring that constitutional equality and administrative stability are harmoniously preserved.
38. In such circumstances, the applicant is entitled only to limited relief in the form of notional benefits, without unsettling the appointments of candidates who have been serving for many years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where illegality in the selection process is established but the appointments cannot be disturbed due to the long lapse of time or potential hardship to innocent appointees, the appropriate equitable remedy is to grant notional seniority, notional date of appointment, and notional pay fixation--without monetary arrears. In Union of India v. S.S. Uppal, (1996) 2 SCC 168, the Court held that when retrospective appointment is not feasible, notional seniority must be awarded to restore fairness. Similarly, in State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330, it was held that notional benefits may be granted where interference with appointments would cause undue hardship. In Paluru Ramakrishnaiah v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 47, the Court affirmed that notional promotion or seniority can be granted as an equitable remedy to correct administrative injustice. Applying HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 37 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020 these principles, the applicant's rights can be adequately restored through notional seniority and pay fixation, without disturbing the settled service rights of existing appointees.
39. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove and in order to balance the equities without unsettling long-standing appointments, At this stage, the prayers of the applicant seeking quashment of the Select List dated 13.06.2008 for the posts of Lecturer 10+2 (Chemistry), issuance of a mandamus to consider him for appointment against the then available vacancies, and a prohibition restraining implementation of the said select list and issuance of appointment orders in favour of private respondents, cannot be accepted and are hereby rejected and dismissed. The selected candidates have continued in service since 2008 and disturbing their appointments after such a long lapse of time would cause grave prejudice and administrative instability. Nevertheless, in order to balance the equities and to remedy the proven illegality committed by the Public Service Commission in the petitioner's case, this Transferred Application is disposed of with the afore-mentioned directions granting the applicant notional benefits, without disturbing the service of existing appointees.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 38 :: T.A. No. 1411/2020
40. The petitioner shall be granted notional appointment to the post of Lecturer 10+2 (Chemistry) with effect from the date on which candidates lower in merit within the SC category were appointed pursuant to the 2008 selection process, and he shall also be accorded notional seniority in the cadre from the said date with necessary corrections in his service records. His pay shall be notionally fixed from that date, with all consequential seniority benefits, including consideration for future promotions strictly on the basis of such notional seniority.
41. It is made clear that No arrears of salary or monetary benefits shall be payable for the notional period, so as to avoid financial burden on the State; however, the notional fixation shall count for all service- related purposes.
42. The entire exercise shall be completed within 8 weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
43. No order as to cost.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/Harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV