Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Fiaz Ahmed vs D/O Home Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir on 12 May, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 2546/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 2546/2021
Reserved on: - 10.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 12.5.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. Fiaz Ahmed, Age 27 years, S/o Mohd Nazir R/o Gursai, Tehsil
Mendhar District Poonch
2. Mohd Yasar Khan, Age 27 years, S/o Allah Ditta R/o Traranwali
Tehsil Surankote Distt Poonch
3. Asaf Amin, Age 26 years S/o Mohd Amin R/o Fazalabad, Tehsil
Surankote District Poonch
4. Mohd Adil, Age 25 years S/o Mohd Mumtaz R/o Traranwali, Tehsil
Surankote District Poonch
5. Zahid Khan, Age 21 years, S/o Manir Hussain Khan R/o Bufliaz Tehsil
Surankote District Poonch
6. Jahangeer Khan, Age 28 years, S/o Farman Ali KhanR/o Bufliaz
Tehsil Surankote District Poonch
7. Mohd Saleem Age 23 years, S/o Waliat Khan R/o Bufliaz Tehsil
Surankote District Poonch
8. Auranzzeb Khan Age 28 years, S/o Ahmed Khan R/o Bufliaz Tehsil
Surankote District Poonch
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Adv)
Versus
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 2546/2021
1. The State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Commissioner/Secretary to
Govt., Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu.
2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Srinagar/Jammu.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Poonch
4. Ghulam Rasool S/o Qadeer Hussain
5. Javed Iqbal S/o Abdul Hamid
6. Afraz Ahmed S/o Tariq Hussain
7. Mohd Zabir S/o Mohd Azam
8. Rameez Ahmed S/o Mohd Iqbal
9. Nazakat Hussain Shah S/o Kala Shah
10.Istkhar Hussain Shah, S/o Abdul Azeem Shah
11.Parvaiz Ahmed S/o Mohd. Sadiq
12.Shabir Ahmed S/o Ghulam Rasool
13.Javid Iqbal S/o Ali Joo
14.Irshad Ahmed S/o Mohd. Bashir
15.Aftab Hussain Shah S/o Tufail Hussain Shah
16.Shafqat HayatS/o Mohd Zabir
17.Zahier Ahmed Khan S/o Mohd Sadeeq Khan
18.Nazarat Hussain S/o Mohd Latief
19.Tanvir Hussain Shah S/o Tafail Hussain Shah
20.Mohd Parvaiz S/o Faqir Mohd
21.Layakit Hussain S/o Sarwar Hussain
22.Sohil Amar S/o Muneer Hussain
(Respondents No.4 to 22 through respondent No.3 i.e. Senior
Superintendent of Police, Poonch)
...Respondent
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thappa, ld. AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld. DAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 2546/2021
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The SWP No.1594/2016 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.2546/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
I. CERTIORARI : - seeking quashment of selection of private respondents No.4 to 22 as Police Constable J&K Police Executive/Armed issued by respondent No.2 dated 25-06-2016 made in J&K Police pursuant to advertisement notification No.Pers/A/117/2015/ 47322-422 dated 25-08- 2015 in open merit figuring from serial No.74 upto 85 of the select list and under the RBA category from figuring at serial No.26 upto 30 as also respondent No.22 figuring at serial No.3 of the select list under RBA category being illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide and against the relevant rules and selection norms.
II. MANDAMUS Commanding and directing the respondents to consider the selection and appointment of the petitioners as Police Constables in J&K Police (Executive/Armed) taking in regard the merit and qualification of the petitioners in respective categories.
III. With a further direction to the respondent0030 produce the entire record of the selection of the Police Constables in J&K (Executive/Armed) made pursuant to advertisement supra for perusal of the Hon'ble Court.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: TA 2546/2021
IV. PROHIBITION prohibiting and restraining the respondents not
to issue the appointment orders in favour of the private respondents No.4 to 22 till the final outcome of the present writ petition.
With any other writ, order or direction to which the petitioners are found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1594/2016, which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu to this Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 2546/2021. The applicants have called in question the selection of private respondents No. 4 to 22 as Constables in J&K Police Executive/Armed, pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. Pers/A/117/2015/47322-422 dated 25.08.2015 and the select list issued on 25.06.2016.
b) The applicants are residents of District Poonch and had applied for the post of Constable in J&K Police Executive/Armed in response to the aforesaid advertisement notification. It is pleaded that applicants No. 1 to 4 belong to the RBA category, whereas applicants No. 5 to 8 belong to the Open Merit HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 2546/2021 category. Applicant No. 1 is stated to be possessing the qualification of M.A., B.Ed., while the other applicants possess qualifications ranging from B.A. to 10+2.
c) As per the advertisement notification, applications were invited from eligible permanent residents of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir for recruitment to the posts of Constables in Executive/Armed Police. For District Poonch, 37 posts were advertised in Executive Police and 113 posts in Armed Police.
The notification also provided 15% horizontal reservation for eligible Special Police Officers who had completed three years of continuous engagement and Volunteer Home Guards who had completed five years of service.
d) The case of the applicants is that they were eligible in all respects, applied in their respective categories and participated in the entire selection process. They claim that they successfully qualified the physical endurance test as well as the physical standard test and thereafter appeared in the written examination. According to them, after qualifying the physical tests, their HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 2546/2021 merit was required to be assessed by taking into consideration their educational qualifications and overall suitability.
e) The petitioners were subjected to physical test which the petitioners fully qualified and whereafter the petitioners were called for written test which also successfully completed by the petitioners but unfortunate aspect of the matter is that how come an M.A. B.Ed. candidate failed in written test and matriculate candidates qualified the same. The physical standard and criteria which the petitioners fully qualified is reproduced below for the facility of reference: -
A Physical Endurance Test (PET) Long Race = 1600 meters in 06 Qualifying (only candidates who minutes for males. 1000 meters in 06 qualify the physical endurance test minutes for females. (PET) shall be eligible for the PST Pushups =20 (male candidates only) (one cycle of up and down to be counted as one) Shot Put (4 kgs) = 14 ½½ feet in three (female candidates) attempts only) the Test shall be qualifying in nature and no marks are allotted for these HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 2546/2021 tests B Physical standard Test (PST) Measurement of Height and Chest The candidates are also required to carry their original documents for scrutiny during the PST.
C Written Examination The Question paper will be of 100 (objective type) marks (multiple choice) of two hours only for the candidates who duration based on OMR sheets. The qualify the physical endurance test Questions will be of 10th standard. and meet the required physical standards as at A) & B above, respectively.
f) The applicants have pleaded that despite their eligibility, higher qualifications and successful participation in the recruitment process, their names did not figure in the final select list. They have alleged that the private respondents, who according to them were less meritorious and less qualified, were selected in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Particular grievance has been raised by applicant No. 1 against the selection of respondent No. 22, Sohil Amar, who according to the applicants was less qualified and underage.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 8 :: TA 2546/2021
g) The applicants further submit that applicant No. 1, being M.A.,
B.Ed. and belonging to the RBA category, had a preferential claim over respondent No. 22. It is also pleaded that applicant No. 1 was on the verge of becoming overage and, therefore, ought to have been given preference in terms of the rules and the selection norms.
h) Another ground urged by the applicants is that the official respondents allegedly misapplied the principle of horizontal reservation meant for SPOs/VHGs. According to them, the respondents did not disclose or follow any clear method for applying the 15% horizontal reservation in each category and, in the process, exceeded the permissible number of reserved posts for SPOs in both Open Merit and RBA categories.
i) The applicants have also challenged the conduct of the written examination. They allege that the candidates were permitted to cut/cross an already marked answer and mark another option, which according to them created scope for manipulation. It is their case that such liberty in an OMR-based examination was HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 2546/2021 contrary to the selection norms and rendered the written examination doubtful and non-transparent.
j) It is further pleaded that the selection process lacked transparency and was conducted in a pick-and-choose manner. The applicants allege that the official respondents failed to follow the criteria mentioned in the advertisement notification and that the selection of the private respondents is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the applicable rules.
k) On these averments, the applicants seek quashing of the selection of private respondents No. 4 to 22 as Police Constables in J&K Police Executive/Armed, with a further direction to the official respondents to consider and appoint the applicants against the posts allegedly occupied by the private respondents.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The official respondents have contested the claim of the applicants and have raised a preliminary objection that no constitutional, legal or statutory right of the applicants has been HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 2546/2021 violated. It is stated that the applicants have no cause of action and that the application deserves to be dismissed.
b) The respondents submit that the applicants have approached the Tribunal on false and flimsy grounds after having failed to secure the requisite merit in the written examination. According to the respondents, the selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with the advertisement notification and the applicable rules.
c) The respondents have placed on record the marks obtained by the applicants in their respective categories. The marks of the applicants are as under:
PETITIONER NAME ROLL NO. CATEGOR MARKS
NO. OBTAINE
1 Fiaz Ahmed 2602788 RBA 41
2 Mohd Yasar Khan 2604198 RBA 35
3 Asaf Amen 2600085 RBA 21
4 Mohd Adil 2603505 RBA 23
5 Zahid Khan 2603642 OM 34
6 Jahangeer Khan 2603643 OM 23
7 Mohd Saleem 2600445 OM 36
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 11 :: TA 2546/2021
8 Auranzzeb Khan 2601057 OM 35
d) The respondents state that the cut-off merit in District Poonch
was 55 marks in the Open Merit category and 45 marks in the RBA category. Since none of the applicants secured marks equal to or above the prescribed cut-off in their respective categories, they could not be selected.
e) It is further stated that respondents No. 4 to 15 are selectees under the SPO quota in the Open Merit category, whereas respondents No. 16 to 21 are selectees under the SPO quota in the RBA category. Respondents No. 16 and 17, who belong to the RBA category, secured 45 marks each, which was the cut-
off merit in the RBA category. Respondent No. 22, Sohil Amar, also belongs to the RBA category and secured 53 marks, which was much higher than the marks obtained by applicant No. 1.
f) In response to the allegation that applicant No. 1 was more qualified than respondent No. 22, the respondents submit that educational qualification was not the determining criterion for selection. The selection was based on merit obtained in the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 2546/2021 written examination after qualifying the physical tests. Therefore, merely possessing higher educational qualification did not confer any vested or preferential right of selection upon applicant No. 1.
g) With regard to the age of respondent No. 22, the respondents submit that the advertisement notification clearly provided that a candidate should not be less than 18 years and not more than 28 years of age as on 01.01.2015. It was further specified that candidates born before 01.01.1987 and after 01.01.1997 would not be eligible. Since respondent No. 22 was born on 01.01.1997, he was eligible under the advertisement notification.
h) The respondents have denied the allegation of irregular application of horizontal reservation. It is stated that 15% horizontal reservation for eligible SPOs was applied in accordance with Clause 10 of the advertisement notification and Rule 4(d) Explanation (B) of SRO 294 of 2005. The respondents submit that the select list was prepared on the basis HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 2546/2021 of merit within the respective categories and in accordance with the reservation rules.
i) As regards the allegation concerning permission to cross an answer and mark another option, the respondents submit that the objection is misconceived. It is stated that such instruction was duly notified and widely published in print media before the examination. The respondents further submit that the applicants, having participated in the examination with full knowledge of the instructions, are estopped from challenging the same after failing to secure selection.
j) The respondents have explained that the provision for remarking an answer was an additional facility given to candidates to enable them to reconsider their answer during the examination. It is further stated that the answer sheets were evaluated through Intelligent Character Recognition technology, which could distinguish between a filled bubble and a bubble filled and thereafter crossed. The scanned copies of answer sheets were obtained immediately after the examination and sealed to avoid any manipulation.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 14 :: TA 2546/2021
k) According to the respondents, the entire recruitment process
was conducted under stringent safeguards and was fair, transparent and merit-based. They deny that any illegality, irregularity, favouritism or manipulation was committed in the selection process.
l) The respondents accordingly submit that the applicants, having failed to secure the cut-off marks in their respective categories, cannot seek quashing of the selection of candidates who secured higher merit. They have prayed for dismissal of the Transfer Application.
5. The applicants have filed their rejoinder to the reply statement filed by the respondents wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) In their rejoinder, the applicants have denied the stand taken by the official respondents and have reiterated the averments made in the original writ petition/Transfer Application. They submit that the reply filed by the respondents does not satisfactorily answer the allegations raised by them and is silent on several material aspects of the case.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 2546/2021
b) The applicants contend that the respondents themselves have admitted that the answer sheets were evaluated through Intelligent Character Recognition technology instead of the usual OMR method. According to the applicants, the advertisement notification dated 25.08.2015 prescribed the use of OMR/OCR sheets and did not contemplate the adoption of any different or modified procedure during the selection process.
c) It is further pleaded that by introducing a method which permitted candidates to cross an earlier marked answer and mark another option, the respondents changed the rules of the game after commencement of the selection process. The applicants contend that such change was impermissible in law and vitiated the entire selection process.
d) The applicants have also pleaded that the advertisement notification required use of CCTV technology to videograph various stages of recruitment and to maintain backup of record. According to them, the respondents have neither specifically replied to this allegation nor produced any proof to show that HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: TA 2546/2021 such technology was actually used and the record was preserved.
e) The applicants further state that if such record was maintained by the respondents, the same ought to have been produced for judicial scrutiny. They have therefore prayed that the respondents be directed to produce the recruitment record, including the video backup, if any.
f) The applicants have also reiterated that less qualified candidates were selected over more qualified candidates. They have specifically referred to one Imran Khan, figuring at Serial No. 43 in the select list with 59 marks, who according to them possessed only matriculation qualification, whereas applicant No. 1 possessed M.A., B.Ed. qualification. They allege that selection of such candidates shows favouritism and manipulation.
g) It is further pleaded that the applicants accepted only the terms and conditions of the advertisement notification dated 25.08.2015 and not any subsequent modification or altered method of evaluation. According to them, the respondents were HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: TA 2546/2021 bound to strictly adhere to the original advertisement notification and could not alter the process to benefit favoured candidates.
h) On these grounds, the applicants have reiterated that the selection process was arbitrary, non-transparent and contrary to the advertisement notification and settled law. They have therefore prayed that the Transfer Application be allowed and the impugned selection of the private respondents be quashed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1594/2016, which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu to this Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 2546/2021. The applicants have challenged the selection of private respondents No. 4 to 22 as Constables in J&K Police Executive/Armed pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. Pers/A/117/2015/47322-422 dated 25.08.2015 and the select list issued on 25.06.2016.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: TA 2546/2021
8. The applicants have prayed for quashing of the selection of the private respondents and for a direction to the official respondents to consider and appoint the applicants as Police Constables in J&K Police Executive/Armed on the basis of their alleged superior merit, qualification and entitlement in their respective categories.
9. The case of the applicants, in brief, is that they are residents of District Poonch. Applicants No. 1 to 4 belong to the RBA category, whereas applicants No. 5 to 8 belong to the Open Merit category. It has been pleaded that applicant No. 1 possesses the qualification of M.A., B.Ed., while the other applicants possess qualifications of B.A. and 10+2. They applied for the post of Constable in response to the advertisement notification dated 25.08.2015. As per the advertisement notification, 37 posts were advertised for Executive Police and 113 posts for Armed Police in District Poonch. The advertisement also provided 15% horizontal reservation in favour of eligible Special Police Officers who had completed three years of continuous engagement and Volunteer Home Guards who had completed five years of service. The applicants participated in the recruitment process. According to them, they qualified the physical endurance test HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 :: TA 2546/2021 and physical standard test and thereafter appeared in the written examination. Their grievance is that despite being eligible and qualified, their names did not figure in the final select list. It is alleged that the private respondents, who according to the applicants were less meritorious and less qualified, were selected illegally and arbitrarily. The applicants have particularly questioned the selection of respondent No. 22, Sohil Amar, under the RBA category. It is pleaded that applicant No. 1, being M.A., B.Ed. and on the verge of becoming overage, had a preferential claim over respondent No. 22. It is further alleged that respondent No. 22 was underage and was not eligible for selection. The applicants have also challenged the manner in which horizontal reservation for SPOs/VHGs was applied. According to them, the respondents did not clearly disclose how 15% horizontal reservation was applied in different categories and had exceeded the permissible number of posts meant for SPOs.
10. Another grievance raised by the applicants is with regard to the conduct of the written examination. It has been alleged that candidates were permitted to cut/cross an already marked answer and mark another option, which according to the applicants created scope for HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 :: TA 2546/2021 manipulation. It is pleaded that such a procedure was contrary to the OMR-based examination system and vitiated the selection process.
11. The official respondents have contested the claim of the applicants.
According to the respondents, the applicants participated in the entire selection process and having failed to secure the requisite merit, cannot now challenge the same process merely because they were not selected.
12. The respondents have placed on record the marks obtained by the applicants. The details are as under:
PETITIONER NAME ROLL NO. CATEGOR MARKS
NO. OBTAINE
1 Fiaz Ahmed 2602788 RBA 41
2 Mohd Yasar Khan 2604198 RBA 35
3 Asaf Amen 2600085 RBA 21
4 Mohd Adil 2603505 RBA 23
5 Zahid Khan 2603642 OM 34
6 Jahangeer Khan 2603643 OM 23
7 Mohd Saleem 2600445 OM 36
8 Auranzzeb Khan 2601057 OM 35
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 21 :: TA 2546/2021
13. The respondents have further stated that the cut-off merit in District Poonch was 55 marks in Open Merit category and 45 marks in RBA category. None of the applicants secured marks equal to or above the cut-off in their respective categories. Applicant No. 1, who has raised the main grievance against respondent No. 22, secured only 41 marks, whereas respondent No. 22 secured 53 marks in the RBA category.
14. With regard to the allegation of higher qualification, the respondents have stated that the selection was not to be made on the basis of higher educational qualification. The relevant criterion was merit obtained in the written examination after qualifying the physical tests. Therefore, possession of M.A., B.Ed. qualification by applicant No. 1 did not confer any preferential or vested right of appointment.
15. In respect of the age of respondent No. 22, the respondents have clarified that as per the advertisement notification, a candidate should not be less than 18 years and not more than 28 years of age as on 01.01.2015. It was further provided that candidates born before 01.01.1987 and after 01.01.1997 would not be eligible. Since respondent No. 22 was born on 01.01.1997, he was within the eligible age limit.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 22 :: TA 2546/2021
16. Regarding horizontal reservation, the respondents have stated that 15% reservation for eligible SPOs was applied strictly in accordance with Clause 10 of the advertisement notification and Rule 4(d) Explanation (B) of SRO 294 of 2005. The selected SPO candidates were adjusted in their respective vertical categories in accordance with the principle of horizontal reservation. On the issue of permitting candidates to cross an answer and mark another option, the respondents have stated that such instructions were notified and widely published in newspapers before the written examination. The respondents have further explained that the answer sheets were evaluated through Intelligent Character Recognition technology, which could distinguish between a filled bubble and a bubble which was filled and thereafter crossed. It has also been stated that scanned copies of answer sheets were obtained immediately after the examination and sealed so as to prevent manipulation.
17. The admitted position is that all the applicants participated in the recruitment process. They qualified the physical tests and appeared in the written examination. The selection was based on marks obtained in the written examination, subject to fulfilment of other eligibility HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 :: TA 2546/2021 conditions. The applicants have not disputed that they obtained the marks reflected by the respondents. Their marks are much below the cut-off prescribed for their respective categories.
18. The cut-off merit for Open Merit category was 55 marks. Applicants No. 5 to 8, who belong to Open Merit category, secured 34, 23, 36 and 35 marks respectively. Similarly, the cut-off for RBA category was 45 marks. Applicants No. 1 to 4, who belong to RBA category, secured 41, 35, 21 and 23 marks respectively. Thus, none of the applicants reached the minimum merit required for selection in their respective categories.
19. Once the applicants failed to secure marks equal to the last selected candidate in their respective categories, they cannot seek appointment as a matter of right. Selection to a public post must be governed by the notified criteria and comparative merit. Sympathy, higher qualification or the fact that a candidate is nearing the upper age limit cannot override merit determined in accordance with the selection process.
20. The principal contention of applicant No. 1 is that he possessed higher qualification of M.A., B.Ed. and therefore ought to have been HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 24 :: TA 2546/2021 preferred over respondent No. 22. This argument cannot be accepted. The post advertised was that of Constable. The advertisement did not provide that candidates with higher educational qualification would be awarded additional marks or would be preferred over candidates securing higher marks in the written examination. The minimum qualification and the selection criterion were part of the advertisement. A candidate possessing higher qualification cannot insist that such higher qualification must prevail over the notified selection criterion.
21. It is well settled that once the rules of selection prescribe a particular mode of assessment, selection has to be made in that manner alone. The Tribunal cannot substitute the notified criterion with a new criterion merely because one of the candidates possesses higher educational qualification. If such a plea is accepted, the entire sanctity of the recruitment process would be disturbed.
22. The record further shows that respondent No. 22 secured 53 marks in RBA category, whereas applicant No. 1 secured only 41 marks. The difference is substantial. Applicant No. 1, therefore, cannot claim that he was more meritorious than respondent No. 22. In a selection HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 25 :: TA 2546/2021 process based on written examination marks, merit means marks obtained in the prescribed test and not academic qualification beyond the eligibility requirement.
23. The challenge to the age eligibility of respondent No. 22 is also without merit. The advertisement provided that candidates born before 01.01.1987 and after 01.01.1997 would not be eligible. Respondent No. 22 was born on 01.01.1997. Therefore, he was not born after 01.01.1997 and was clearly within the zone of eligibility. The allegation that he was underage is thus contrary to the plain terms of the advertisement.
24. The applicants have also alleged that the respondents wrongly applied horizontal reservation in favour of SPOs/VHGs. However, no specific material has been placed on record by the applicants to show that any particular post was wrongly diverted or that any selected SPO candidate was adjusted contrary to the principle of horizontal reservation. Mere allegation that the respondents exceeded the permissible quota is not sufficient to invalidate the selection.
25. The respondents have specifically pleaded that 15% horizontal reservation was applied in terms of Clause 10 of the advertisement HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 26 :: TA 2546/2021 notification and Rule 4(d) Explanation (B) of SRO 294 of 2005. Horizontal reservation cuts across vertical categories and selected candidates are adjusted in their respective social categories. The respondents have also clarified that respondents No. 4 to 15 were selected as SPOs under Open Merit category, whereas respondents No. 16 to 21 were selected as SPOs under RBA category. Respondent No. 22 secured 53 marks in RBA category.
26. In absence of any cogent evidence establishing breach of reservation rules, the Tribunal cannot presume illegality in the selection process. A recruitment process cannot be set aside on the basis of vague allegations, particularly when the applicants themselves are much below the cut-off marks.
27. The next argument of the applicants relates to the written examination procedure. They contend that permitting candidates to cross an answer and mark another option created scope for manipulation. This argument also does not merit acceptance.
28. The respondents have explained that the instruction was notified before the written examination and was widely published. The applicants participated in the written examination with full knowledge HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 27 :: TA 2546/2021 of the said instructions. They did not challenge the instructions before appearing in the examination. They took a chance, participated in the process, and only after failing to secure selection, questioned the procedure. Such a challenge is hit by the principle of estoppel.
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a candidate who participates in a selection process without objection cannot turn around after being unsuccessful and challenge the very process. Reference may be made to Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, wherein it was held that candidates who take a chance to get selected cannot thereafter challenge the process merely because the result is not favourable to them.
30. Similarly, in Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unsuccessful candidates who participated in the selection process without protest are estopped from challenging the selection criteria. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357, the same principle was reiterated by holding that candidates cannot approbate and reprobate after participating in the process.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 28 :: TA 2546/2021
31. Applying the aforesaid settled principles, the applicants cannot be permitted to challenge the examination instructions after having participated in the written examination and after having failed to secure marks above the cut-off. Their challenge is clearly an afterthought.
32. Even otherwise, the respondents have given a reasonable explanation.
They have stated that the facility to cross an answer and mark another option was given to all candidates uniformly and not to any selected candidate individually. It was not a secret or selective privilege. It was part of the notified instructions. The answer sheets were evaluated through Intelligent Character Recognition technology, which could distinguish between a filled bubble and a filled-and-crossed bubble. The respondents have also stated that scanned copies of answer sheets were taken immediately after the examination and sealed to prevent manipulation.
33. There is no material before this Tribunal to hold that the answer sheets of any selected candidate were manipulated or that the applicants suffered prejudice on account of the said instruction. No individual answer sheet has been shown to be tampered with. No mala fide has HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 29 :: TA 2546/2021 been established against any member of the recruiting authority. In service jurisprudence, selection cannot be interfered with on suspicion alone.
34. The applicants have also alleged that CCTV technology was not used or that the record was not produced. However, again, no specific prejudice has been demonstrated. In the absence of specific pleadings supported by material particulars, such general allegations cannot be made the basis for quashing an entire selection process, particularly when appointments have been made on the basis of comparative merit.
35. It is also relevant that the applicants have not impleaded or challenged all selected candidates in a manner that would enable the Tribunal to examine the entire selection. They have selectively challenged respondents No. 4 to 22. When the relief sought is to disturb a completed selection process, the pleadings must be specific, clear and supported by material. General allegations of favouritism, manipulation and pick-and-choose cannot be accepted in the absence of proof.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 30 :: TA 2546/2021
36. The argument that a matriculate candidate could not have secured more marks than an M.A., B.Ed. candidate is wholly misconceived. Written examination performance depends upon the answers given in the examination. A higher academic degree does not automatically guarantee higher marks in a recruitment test. The Tribunal cannot presume illegality merely because a candidate with lesser academic qualification secured more marks than a candidate with higher qualification.
37. The scope of judicial review in recruitment matters is limited. The Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the selection committee. Unless the selection is shown to be contrary to statutory rules, vitiated by mala fide, or affected by patent arbitrariness, interference is not warranted. In the present case, the applicants have failed to establish any such illegality.
38. The admitted marks obtained by the applicants completely demolish their claim. Their marks are below the cut-off. Even if their allegations regarding higher qualification are accepted, they still cannot cross the notified merit threshold. Therefore, no direction for appointment or consideration can be issued in their favour.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 31 :: TA 2546/2021
39. It is also settled that mere participation in a selection process does not confer any right of appointment. A candidate acquires a right to be considered in accordance with rules. The applicants were considered. They participated in the physical tests and written examination. Their marks were evaluated. They failed to make the grade. Therefore, the process of consideration stood completed in accordance with the advertised criteria. The applicants have not been able to show violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. On the contrary, granting relief to candidates who secured marks below the cut-off would itself amount to violation of equality and would prejudice candidates who secured higher marks.
40. The Tribunal is also conscious of the fact that the selection pertains to the year 2016. The selected candidates must have joined and served for several years. At this belated stage, the selection cannot be unsettled in absence of any proven illegality or fraud. Courts and Tribunals must be slow in disturbing completed selections after long lapse of time, especially where the applicants have failed on merit.
41. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the applicants have failed to make out any case for interference. They HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 32 :: TA 2546/2021 secured marks below the cut-off in their respective categories. Their claim based on higher educational qualification is not sustainable. The challenge to the age of respondent No. 22 is factually incorrect. The allegation regarding horizontal reservation is unsupported by any cogent material. The challenge to the written examination procedure is barred by estoppel and is otherwise not substantiated.
42. For the foregoing reasons, the Transfer Application is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The selection of private respondents No. 4 to 22 as Constables in J&K Police Executive/Armed pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. Pers/A/117/2015/47322-422 dated 25.08.2015 and select list dated 25.06.2016 does not call for any interference.
43. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV