Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Arun Sagar vs Jammu & Kashmir Police on 22 May, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 611/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 611/2020
Reserved on: - 30.12.2025
Pronounced on: - 22.05.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. Arun Sagar S/o Sh. Sagar Anand Gill R/o H. No. 169 Ward No. 5
Dialan Bagh R. S. Pura District Jammu Aged 26 years.
2. Gurmeet Singh S/o Late Sh. Amrik Singh R/o Purana Pind (Shiv
Nagar) H. No. 12, R. S. Pura District Jammu Aged 27 years.
3. Kishore Sharma S/o Sh. Darshan Lal R/o Village Mokhey Tehsil R. S.
Pura District Jammu Age 29 years.
4. Akhil Sangra S/o Sh. Parshotam Lal R/o Sehswan Tehsil Hiranagar
District Kathua Aged 24 years.
5. Attu Shah Bhola S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan Bhola R/o Gurdeep Vihar
Near Telephone Exchange Kotli Gala Bana R. S. Pura District Jammu
Aged 25 years.
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate)
Versus
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Government of
J&K, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Home Department, J&K
Govt., Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
3. Director General of Police, J&K, Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 611/2020
4. Deputy Inspector Director General of Police, Jammu-Kathua Range,
Jammu (Chairman, Range Level Recruitment Board,
Jammu/Samba/Kathua).
5. Jaswinder Singh S/o Sh. Jagjit Singh R/o Jeevan 5. Nagar, Jammu.
6. Gurvinder Singh S/o Sh. Jagdish Singh R/o Kadyal Tehsil R. S. Pura
District Jammu.
7. Virender Singh S/o Sh. Jaswaant Singh R/o Thank, Hira Nagar,
Kathua.
8. Sandeep Charak S/o Sh. Jang Bir Singh R/o Bablian Gangyal, Jammu.
9. Imran Khan S/o Sh. Dilawan Hussain R/o 812-Rehari Colony,
Jammu.
10.Khalid Karim Zargar S/o Sh. Ab. Karim R/o Kanispura District
Baramulla.
11.Javed Iqbal Choudhary S/o Mohd Sadeeq R/o Chowadi Delney,
Jammu.
12.Mohd Rashid S/o Latif Hussain R/o Chowadi , Batti, Jammu.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld , AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 611/2020
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The SWP/WPC/07/2011 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.611/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) to quash select list issued by the respondents for the post of Sub-Inspectors in Executive Wing of J&K Police by which the respondents have selected private respondent nos. 5 to 12 as Sub-Inspectors in Executive Wing pursuant to Advertisement Notice no. PERS-A-400-2009/4414-513 dated 29.01.2009 and ignored the petitioners, who are fully eligible and entitled for the same, by issuance of writ of certiorari.
b) to issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for selection/appointment to the post of Sub-
Inspectors in Executive Wing of J&K Police under open merit category as the petitioners are fully eligible and entitled for being selected/appointed to the post of Sub-Inspectors as the petitioners are more meritorious than private respondent nos. 5 to 12, by issuance of writ of mandamus;
c) to issue directions to the respondents restraining them to implement select list issued by the respondents for the post of Sub-Inspectors in Executive Wing of J&K Police by which the respondents have selected private respondent nos. 5 to 12 as Sub-Inspectors in Executive Wing pursuant to Advertisement Notice no. PERS-A-400-2009/4414-513 dated 29.01.2009 and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 611/2020 ignored the petitioners, who are fully eligible and entitled for the same and also restraining the respondents to allow any candidates to join on the post of Sub-Inspectors under open merit category and also restraining them to issue appointment orders in favour of selected candidates /private respondent nos. 5 to 12 under open merit category and restraining the respondents to make any appointment/adjustment for the Sub- Inspectors in J&K Executive Police under open merit category, by issuance of writ of prohibition;
d) to issue directions to the respondents to produce the original record of selection before this Hon'ble Court by which the respondents have selected private respondent nos. 5 to 12 as Sub-Inspectors in J&K Executive Police under open merit category, by issuance of writ of mandamus;
e) to declare select list issued by the respondents for the post of Sub-Inspectors in Executive Wing of J&K Police by which the respondents have selected private respondent nos. 5 to 12 as Sub-Inspectors in Executive Wing pursuant to Advertisement Notice no. PERS-A-400-2009/4414-513 dated 29.01.2009 and ignored the petitioners, who are fully eligible and entitled for the same, as ultra virus, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law and Rules and against the provisions of principles of natural justice, by issuance of writ of mandamus;
f) to issue any other writ, order or directions which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents with costs."
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 :: TA 611/2020
3. The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP/WPC No. 07/2011, which was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu to this Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 611/2020.
4. The applicants have filed the present proceedings seeking quashing of the select list issued by the respondents for the post of Sub-Inspectors in the Executive Wing of J&K Police pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. PERS-A-400-2009/4414-513 dated 29.01.2009, to the extent private respondent Nos. 5 to 12 have been selected. The applicants have also prayed for a direction to the official respondents to consider and appoint them as Sub-Inspectors in the Executive Wing, alleging that they were more meritorious and that the private respondents were wrongly selected.
5. The case of the applicants is that the Director General of Police issued Advertisement Notice dated 29.01.2009 inviting applications from eligible permanent residents of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir for recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspectors in different wings of J&K Police, including Executive Wing, Armed Wing, Auxiliary Wing and Telecommunication Wing. The applicants state HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 611/2020 that they were fully eligible in terms of age, educational qualification and physical standards. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 applied for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Executive Wing, whereas Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 applied for both Executive and Armed Wings.
6. According to the applicants, they participated in the physical measurement test and outdoor/endurance test and successfully qualified the same. Thereafter, they appeared in the written examination and qualified the same, whereupon they were called for viva-voce/personality test. The applicants allege that despite their eligibility and merit, they were ignored and private respondent Nos. 5 to 12 were selected. The principal grievance of the applicants is that the selected private respondents had either not participated in or had not qualified the physical measurement/outdoor test, yet they were permitted to appear in the written examination and viva-voce and were finally selected. It is further pleaded by the applicants that the respondents did not publish the list of candidates who had qualified the physical measurement and outdoor tests. According to them, non- publication of such list created doubt regarding the transparency of the process and was intended to benefit favoured candidates.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 7 :: TA 611/2020
7. The applicants also contend that in terms of the original notification, only one opportunity was available for appearing in the physical test. However, the respondents subsequently granted another opportunity to certain candidates who had not appeared earlier. According to the applicants, such second opportunity was impermissible and was granted only to accommodate favoured persons. Another grievance raised by the applicants is that Government Order No. 2988 of 2009 dated 17.08.2009 contemplated a preliminary examination, main written examination and viva-voce/personality test. However, the respondents allegedly changed the criteria midway and conducted only one written test. It is also alleged that the written paper was not in accordance with the notified syllabus, as questions in the nature of "fill in the blanks" were asked instead of multiple-choice objective- type questions. On these grounds, the applicants contend that the selection process was arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
8. The official respondents have opposed the claim of the applicants.
They have raised a preliminary objection that the applicants HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 611/2020 participated in the entire selection process and, after having failed to secure marks within the cut-off merit, cannot challenge the selection process. The official respondents submit that the applicants were not denied participation at any stage. They appeared in the physical test, written examination and viva-voce. Their non-selection was only because they failed to secure marks within the zone of selection. The respondents have denied the allegation that any candidate who failed to qualify the physical measurement/outdoor test was allowed to participate in the written examination or viva-voce. It is stated that the entire process was conducted by duly constituted Recruitment Boards in a fair and transparent manner. Regarding the grant of second opportunity to some candidates for physical measurement/outdoor test, the respondents submit that such opportunity was granted to candidates who could not appear on the scheduled dates due to cogent reasons. It is further stated that the facility was not confined to any particular person or district, but was extended generally to eligible candidates from different areas of the State.
9. The respondents have further stated that the physical measurement and outdoor tests were qualifying in nature and had no bearing on the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 611/2020 final merit. Therefore, the grant of another opportunity to appear in those qualifying tests did not affect the merit position of the applicants. With respect to the written examination, the respondents submit that the advertisement notice did not provide for a separate preliminary examination. The Government Order dated 17.08.2009 was issued for administrative convenience. Since the advertisement notice did not stipulate a preliminary examination, the recruitment process was conducted in accordance with the advertisement notice.
10. The respondents have also denied that "fill in the blanks" questions could not be treated as objective-type questions. According to them, the notification nowhere stated that objective questions would necessarily be multiple-choice questions. The applicants, having taken the examination without protest, cannot challenge the pattern after being unsuccessful. The official respondents have further relied upon the judgment dated 03.05.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 1112/2010 and connected matters, contending that similar challenges to the recruitment process stood dismissed.
11. Private respondent No. 12 has filed separate objections. He has pleaded that he was selected under the Scheduled Tribe category on HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 611/2020 the basis of merit amongst ST category candidates. It is submitted that the applicants belong to the general category and their merit was drawn separately. Therefore, the applicants cannot validly assail his selection. Respondent No. 12 has also taken the stand that he underwent all required tests and interview and was selected strictly in accordance with law and merit. He has denied violation of any rule or procedure.
12. The applicants have filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the petition. They have again asserted that the respondents adopted unfair means and deviated from the prescribed selection process. The applicants contend that the respondents failed to produce any material to show that the private respondents had qualified the physical measurement and outdoor tests. They also submit that the respondents have not explained why the list of candidates who qualified the physical test was not published, though the written examination result and final select list were published. The applicants further state that no policy decision has been placed on record to justify grant of second opportunity to candidates who failed to appear in the physical measurement/outdoor tests on the scheduled dates. The applicants HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 611/2020 have also reiterated that the respondents were required to conduct the recruitment process in accordance with Government Order dated 17.08.2009 and could not change the selection criteria midway.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available before us.
14. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the applicants participated in the selection process. They appeared in the physical measurement/outdoor test, written examination and viva-voce. They were, therefore, not excluded from consideration at any stage. The grievance of the applicants is not that they were denied opportunity to participate, but that after the process was completed and the final select list was issued, they were not selected. Their challenge is, therefore, essentially a post-result challenge by unsuccessful candidates.
15. It is settled that a candidate who participates in a selection process without protest and takes a chance of selection cannot, after being unsuccessful, turn around and challenge the very process in which he participated. Such challenge is barred by the principles of acquiescence and estoppel, unless the candidate establishes patent illegality, fraud or violation of mandatory statutory rules.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 12 :: TA 611/2020
16. In the present case, the applicants have not shown that they objected to the procedure, written examination pattern, grant of second opportunity or any other alleged defect at the relevant time. They participated in the process and raised these objections only after the final result went against them. The allegation that private respondent Nos. 5 to 12 had not qualified the physical measurement/outdoor test is serious in nature. However, such allegation is required to be supported by specific and cogent material. A selection process cannot be set aside merely on the basis of suspicion, conjecture or bald allegation. The official respondents have categorically denied that any candidate who failed to qualify the physical measurement/outdoor test was allowed to sit in the written examination or viva-voce. They have stated that the private respondents were selected only after qualifying the prescribed stages and securing marks within the cut-off merit. The applicants have not produced any conclusive material to establish that the selected private respondents had failed in the physical measurement/outdoor test. Mere non-publication of the physical test list, by itself, cannot lead to an automatic conclusion that unqualified candidates were permitted to participate in the later stages.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 13 :: TA 611/2020
17. It is also material that the physical measurement and outdoor tests were qualifying in nature. They did not carry marks for preparation of final merit. Therefore, unless it is proved that an unqualified candidate was illegally permitted to proceed further, no prejudice can be presumed merely because another opportunity was granted to some candidates for appearing in such qualifying tests. The respondents have explained that another opportunity was granted to candidates who could not appear earlier due to cogent reasons and that such opportunity was not confined to any particular favoured group. The applicants have not established that the said decision was selectively applied or that it resulted in direct prejudice to them.
18. The applicants' contention regarding change in the written examination pattern also does not merit acceptance. The advertisement notice, as per the stand of the respondents, did not specifically provide for holding a separate preliminary examination. The Government Order dated 17.08.2009 was stated to have been issued for administrative convenience. The respondents have asserted that the recruitment was ultimately conducted in accordance with the advertisement notice. Even otherwise, the applicants appeared in the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 611/2020 written examination without protest. They qualified the written examination and were called for viva-voce. Having benefited from the very examination which they now seek to question, the applicants cannot be permitted to challenge the same after failing to make it to the final select list. The objection regarding "fill in the blanks"
questions also does not advance the case of the applicants. The term "objective-type questions" cannot be confined only to multiple-choice questions. Questions in the form of "fill in the blanks" may also fall within the broad category of objective questions, depending upon the nature of the answer expected. In any case, the applicants did not object to the said paper at the relevant time.
19. The applicants have also alleged favouritism and nepotism. Such allegations, however, must be pleaded with specific particulars and proved by reliable material. Vague allegations of selection of "blue- eyed persons" cannot be made a ground to invalidate an entire recruitment process, particularly when the selected candidates have been serving for a long period. The present recruitment process relates to Advertisement Notice dated 29.01.2009, and the select list was published in October, 2010. More than fifteen years have passed since HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 611/2020 the advertisement and about fifteen years since the select list. The selected candidates must have joined and continued in service for a substantial period. At this stage, unsettling the selection would cause serious administrative complications and prejudice to persons who are not shown to have obtained appointment by fraud or misrepresentation. It is equally settled that courts and tribunals should be slow in disturbing old selections, especially when the challenge is not supported by clear proof of illegality and when the selected candidates have served for many years. The applicants have also not demonstrated that they were above the cut-off merit or that they had a superior enforceable claim to appointment. A candidate merely by participating in a selection process or by qualifying earlier stages does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment. Selection depends upon final merit, availability of vacancies and satisfaction of the prescribed criteria.
20. The respondents have specifically pleaded that the applicants failed to secure marks within the cut-off merit and, therefore, could not be selected. This position has not been effectively rebutted by the applicants by placing any final merit list or comparative material HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: TA 611/2020 showing that they were wrongly excluded despite being within the zone of selection.
21. Insofar as respondent No. 12 is concerned, he has stated that he was selected under the Scheduled Tribe category. The applicants, who claim consideration in the general/open merit category, cannot assail the selection of a candidate selected in a reserved category unless they specifically establish violation of reservation rules or inter se merit. No such material has been placed on record.
22. The reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment dated 03.05.2012 passed in SWP No. 1112/2010 and connected matters also supports the stand that similar challenges to the same or related selection process did not find favour with the Hon'ble High Court. Though each case has to be examined on its own facts, the applicants herein have failed to establish any distinct illegality warranting interference.
23. On overall consideration, we are of the view that the applicants have failed to make out a case for quashing the select list or for issuing a direction for their appointment. The allegations of manipulation, favouritism and illegal selection remain unsubstantiated. The HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: TA 611/2020 applicants participated in the process, failed to secure final merit and thereafter challenged the selection. Such challenge cannot be accepted.
24. For the reasons recorded above, we hold that:
a) The applicants participated in the selection process without protest and are estopped from challenging the process after being unsuccessful;
b) The applicants have failed to prove that private respondent Nos.
5 to 12 were selected without qualifying the mandatory tests;
c) The allegations of favouritism, nepotism and manipulation are vague and unsupported by cogent evidence;
d) The selection process relates to the year 2009-2010 and cannot be unsettled at this belated stage in absence of clear and proved illegality.
25. Accordingly, the Transfer Application is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV