Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Sudhir Kumar vs Sh Khalid Jahangir on 5 March, 2026
:: 1 ::
Central Administrative Tribunal
Jammu Bench, Jammu
Hearing through video conferencing
Contempt Application No. 61/15/2021
Arising out of
Original Application No. 61/989/2020
This the 05th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member
1. Sudhir Kumar, aged 33 years, S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal, R/o 367-B,
Lane No. 4, Sector-1, Durga Ngr, Post Office Roop Nagar,
Jammu.
...Petitioner
(Through Advocate: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr.
Aniruddha Sharma)
Versus
1. Sh. Khalid Jahangir, KAS, Chairman, J&K Services Selection
Board, Sehkari Bhawan, Rail Head Complex, Jammu.
2. Sh. Sachin Jamwal, KAS, Secretary, J&K Services Selection
Board, Sehkari Bhawan, Rail Head Complex, Jammu.
..Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, A.A.G./Mr. Rajesh Thapa,
A.A.G.)
ARUN
KUMAR
ARUN
2026.03.19
KUMAR
16:55:18+
05'30'
:: 2 ::
ORDER
(Per:- Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member) The instant Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance and violation of order dated 06.11.2020 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 61/989/2020.
2. Before proceeding to deal with the grounds of challenge to the statement of facts/compliance report, it would be necessary to briefly notice some relevant facts.
3. The J&K Service Selection Board (in short Board) vide advertisement Notification No. 04/2017/15 dated 28.11.2017 invited applications from eligible candidates inter alia for twenty posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector (DMRRR), Divisional Cadre Kashmir, under the Prime Minister's Package for Kashmiri Migrants. The qualification prescribed in the advertisement notice for the aforesaid post was shown as three year diploma in Automobile Engineering.
4. The petitioner who claims to be fully eligible and qualified in terms of the aforesaid advertisement notification applied for the aforesaid post and participated in the selection process which comprised of multiple choice based written examination, but select list was not recommended by the Board and selection process was never taken to its logical conclusion, which compelled the petitioner to file an Original Application (O.A. No. 61/989/2020), in which following reliefs were claimed:-
ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.19 KUMAR 16:55:18+ 05'30' :: 3 ::
i). Allow the instant application of the applicant along with costs.
ii). Direct the respondents to complete the selection process for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector initiated vide Advertisement Notice No. 04/2017/15 dated 28th of November 2017 issued by the respondent No.2 under the Prime Minister Package for Kashmiri Migrants
iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondents along with cost.
5. This Tribunal vide order dated 06.11.2020 disposed of the aforesaid O.A. with the direction to Board to complete the selection process for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector initiated vide aforesaid advertisement notification issued by the Court by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with rules within two months.
6. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the petitioner alleges wilful disobedience of order of this Tribunal dated 06.11.2020, whereby the claim of the petitioner was not considered despite the fact that posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector have not been withdrawn or cancelled, as per information sought and received under Right to Information Act, hence, the instant Contempt Petition was filed seeking action against the respondents under Contempt of Court (CAT) Rules 1992 and Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
7. The respondent-Board has filed the statement of facts, refuting the claim of the petitioner, it is stated that the selection process for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector was initiated in the month of April 2018, however, the syllabus which was shared/forwarded to the ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.19 KUMAR 16:55:18+ 05'30' :: 4 ::
concerned agency for the purpose of conducting written test was wrongly tagged as most of the questions asked in the examination were out of syllabus due to which, the Board had cancelled the written examination ab-initio in the 197th Board Meeting held on 25.01.2022, whereby the posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector were, returned to the indenting department as the selection process could not be taken to its logical conclusion, in addition to the fact, with regard to the change in legal framework, post reorganization of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir.
8. The learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being fully eligible in terms of the advertisement notice, after his participation in the selection process has qualified the CBT Examination for the post in question, but the Board has no authority to cancel the selection process ab-initio and return the post to the indenting department without any request. It is further urged that general instructions issued by the erstwhile government of Jammu and Kashmir, post reorganization for withdrawal of post are not applicable for the posts in question, which were created under the Prime Minister's Package, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. It is further submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel that notification pertaining to cancellation of the selection process has not been placed on record by the Board, notwithstanding the information dated 27.09.2023 provided to the petitioner under the Right to ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.19 KUMAR 16:55:18+ 05'30' :: 5 ::
Information Act, clarifying therein aforesaid advertisement notification dated 28.11.2017 has not been cancelled.
9. The learned Sr. Counsel in the light of submissions made above and direction of the Tribunal urged that the Board may be directed to comply with the order of this Tribunal dated 06.11.2020 by selecting and appointing the petitioner to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector.
10. On the other hand, learned A.A.G. appearing for the Board submitted that the posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector advertised in terms of the notification No. 04 of 2017 dated 28.11.2017, were returned to the indenting department vide communication No. SSB/Secy/2022/1230-60 dated 11.02.2022, as the examination stood cancelled by the Board due to which the selection process could not be completed.
11. It is further submitted that even otherwise, all the posts referred to J&K PSC/SSB prior to 31.10.2019 for which selections have not been finalized along with the posts in which litigations were pending, were deemed to be withdrawn in terms of the communication of GAD Department dated 12.04.2022.
12. We have heard the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Board.
13. The minutes of the meeting of the 197 th Board meeting, placed on record shows that after discussion of the matter in the Board, it was decided to return the posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector to the ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.19 KUMAR 16:55:18+ 05'30' :: 6 ::
indenting department in view of the cancellation of the written examination for the said post, due to the reason that syllabus shared with equity was wrongfully tagged by the J&K SSB and the company had created the question papers as per the syllabus given and examination done, but it was found after the written examination, most of the questions were found out of syllabus, as the syllabus shared was different.
14. It is the contention of the Board that posts in question were returned to the indenting department, in view of the cancellation of the written examination, and also on account of aforesaid communication of GAD department for withdrawal of vacancies from J&K PSC/SSB, in which selection process have not been finalized. It is also the stand of the Board that due to cancellation of the written examination, no merit list, much less select list of the candidates for the posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector was issued and therefore, there is no question of issuance of appointment order in favour of the petitioner, in the absence of any recommendation from the Board.
15. Selection and appointment are two different and distinct parts of the recruitment process, which do not necessarily have to go together, there is no inevitability of appointment merely because a person has been selected for appointment by being included in merit/list select. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Rashid Vs. The Director, local Bodies, New Secretariat and ors (2020) 2 SCC 582 has held that a candidate does not have any vested ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.19 KUMAR 16:55:18+ 05'30' :: 7 ::
right to seek appointment only for the reason that his name appears in the merit list. The same was taken in Shankarsan Dass Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 wherein the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court held that a candidate seeking appointment to a civil post cannot be regarded to have acquired an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post merely because of the appearance of his name in the merit list.
16. Since, the selection process for the post in question was not culminated by issuance of select list in respect of the eligible candidates, due to the cancellation of the written examination and return of the posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector by the Board to the indenting department in terms of 197th meeting of the Board, therefore, direction given by this Tribunal to the Board to complete the selection process for the aforesaid post could not be taken to its logical conclusion.
17. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no contempt is made out against the respondents and the contempt proceeding is accordingly closed and contempt notices issued stand discharged.
(Pragya Sahay Saksena) (Sanjeev Gupta) Administrative Member Judicial Member Arun...
ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.19 KUMAR 16:55:18+ 05'30'