Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Maqsood Ahemad vs Finance Department on 16 February, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 462/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 462/2020
Reserved on: - 07.10.2025
Pronounced on: -16.02.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Maqsood Ahemad son of Maqbool Ahemad age 47 years resident of
148-Gujjar Nagar, Jammu
...Petitioner
(Advocate: - Mr. S.M. Wajahat)
Versus
1.State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to
Govt. Finance Department Civil Sectt. Srinagar
2. The Secretary, Services Selection Board, Sehkari Bhawan, Bahu
Plaza, Jammu.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, Ld. DAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 462/2020
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.2623/2019 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.462/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) "to command and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for selection and appointment as Accounts Assistant (Finance Department) District Cadre, Jammu under ST category as many posts due to non-joining of selected candidates are available in the department.
b) to prohibit respondents from appointing any other candidate as Accounts Assistant(Finance Department) District Cadre, Jammu in the ST category ignoring the merit of the petitioner.
c) to pass such other orders or directions which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present Transfer Application has its genesis in SWP No. 2623/2019, which was initially filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and, upon transfer, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 3 :: TA 462/2020 came to be registered as T.A. No. 462/2020 before this Tribunal. The petitioner, Maqsood Ahmad, claims consideration for appointment to the post of Accounts Assistant (Finance Department), District Cadre Jammu, under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, primarily on the ground that vacancies allegedly arose due to non-joining of selected candidates.
b) The recruitment process in question emanates from Advertisement Notice No. 07 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010, whereby the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board invited applications for the post of Accounts Assistant (Finance Department) for various district cadres, including Jammu. The petitioner, belonging to the ST category, duly applied pursuant to the said advertisement and participated in the selection process in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
c) It is the case of the petitioner that he was shortlisted and called for interview under the ST category and that his name appeared at Serial No. 21 of the interview list. Upon completion of the selection process, a merit list under the ST category for District HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 462/2020 Cadre Jammu was prepared, wherein the petitioner secured 58.3292 marks. The petitioner asserts that the select list as well as the waiting list for the ST category were subsequently notified and that the last candidate in the waiting list, namely Tahira Akhtar, had secured 59.4493 marks, thereby placing the petitioner marginally below the waiting list.
d) The petitioner's principal grievance is that several candidates selected or wait-listed under the ST category allegedly failed to join their posts, resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled. According to the petitioner, once such vacancies arose due to non-joining, the respondents were under a legal obligation to operate the merit list further and consider him for appointment against the available posts, particularly when he had already participated in the same selection process and stood next in order of merit.
e) It is further pleaded that despite repeated representations made to the respondent authorities seeking consideration against the alleged vacant posts, no relief was granted, compelling the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 462/2020 thereafter pursue the present proceedings before this Tribunal. The petitioner maintains that the denial of appointment is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and contrary to settled principles governing public employment.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents, particularly Respondent No. 2 - the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board, have filed a detailed reply contesting the claim of the petitioner both on facts and in law. At the threshold, it is pleaded that the present application is devoid of any enforceable cause of action and does not disclose violation of any statutory or constitutional right warranting interference by this Tribunal.
b) It is specifically averred that the post of Accounts Assistant (Finance Department), District Cadre Jammu, was advertised under Item No. 706 of Advertisement Notice No. 07 of 2010, with a total of 108 posts, out of which 11 posts were earmarked for the ST category. The prescribed qualification for the post was graduation from a recognized university, and the selection HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 462/2020 was conducted strictly in accordance with the notified criteria, which comprised allocation of marks for graduation, post-
graduation, and viva-voce, aggregating to 100 points.
c) Upon completion of the selection process, the final select list, along with the waiting list, was prepared and formally forwarded to the indenting department, i.e., the Finance Department, vide communication dated 15.12.2017. The respondents categorically state that the petitioner secured 58.3292 marks, which were below the last cut-off of 61.2909 marks for selection under the ST category. Even with respect to the waiting list, the last candidate had secured 59.4493 marks, which again was higher than the marks obtained by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner did not fall within either the selection zone or the waiting list and was, therefore, not recommended for appointment.
d) The respondents further contend that the claim of the petitioner based on alleged non-joining of selected or wait-listed candidates is legally untenable in view of Rule 14(7) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 462/2020 Recruitment Rules, 2010, which explicitly prohibits maintenance or operation of any select list or waiting list for future vacancies arising due to resignation or non-joining after appointment. According to the respondents, once the selection process stood concluded and recommendations were forwarded, no vested or indefeasible right accrued in favour of the petitioner to claim appointment against subsequent vacancies.
e) Reliance has also been placed on judicial precedent to submit that a candidate placed below the last wait-listed candidate cannot claim appointment merely because some selected or wait-listed candidates did not join. It is emphasized that the entire recruitment exercise was conducted strictly in conformity with the applicable rules, and no deviation, arbitrariness, or illegality can be attributed to the action of the respondents.
f) The respondents have further alleged that the petitioner has approached the Tribunal by suppressing material facts and by projecting an erroneous interpretation of the recruitment rules, and as such, is not entitled to any discretionary relief. On these grounds, dismissal of the Transfer Application has been sought.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 8 :: TA 462/2020
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present matter has arisen out of SWP No. 2623/2019, which on transfer from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, has been registered as T.A. No. 462/2020 before this Tribunal. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider him for selection/appointment as Accounts Assistant (Finance Department), District Cadre Jammu, under ST category, on the premise that posts have remained vacant due to non-joining of selected/wait-listed candidates, and that being a participant in the same selection process he deserves consideration against such vacancies.
7. The respondents, particularly the Services Selection Board, have opposed the claim contending that the petitioner is below the cut-off for selection as well as below the last wait-listed candidate, and further that Rule 14(7) of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 bars operation of select/waiting lists for any future vacancy caused after appointment/non-joining/resignation etc. The respondents also rely HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 462/2020 upon a judgment dated 17.05.2019 in SWP No. 2021/2017 (Liyakat Hussain Baniya v. State of J&K and Ors.), to submit that a candidate securing merit below the wait-listed candidate cannot claim appointment if the wait-listed candidate does not join.
8. The foundational facts are largely not in dispute. The post of Accounts Assistant (Finance Department), District Cadre Jammu was advertised under Advertisement Notice No. 07 of 2010 and selection was finalized. The respondents assert, and it remains unrebutted on record, that the petitioner secured 58.3292 marks, whereas the last cut-off under ST category is 61.2909, and even the last cut-off in the waiting list under ST category is 59.4493, which is also higher than the petitioner's score.
9. Once this factual position is accepted, the petitioner's claim stands on a legally fragile footing. The petitioner is not merely outside the select list; he is also outside the waiting list. A candidate who does not fall within the zone of consideration, either in the select list or in the wait list, cannot, as a matter of right, compel the employer/selection agency to appoint him against a vacancy that may arise later due to non-joining. Vacancies arising after completion of a selection process HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 462/2020 do not automatically revive the selection process or create a vested right in favour of those who were never within the recommended lists. In service jurisprudence, participation in a process and placement in a merit list by itself does not confer an enforceable right to appointment; at best, it gives a right to fair consideration within the framework of rules governing that particular recruitment.
10. The petitioner's entire case is premised on the assertion that "many selected candidates did not join and therefore posts are lying vacant." Even assuming vacancies did arise due to non-joining, the decisive question is not the existence of vacancy, but the permissibility in law to fill such vacancy by operating the same selection/waiting list and the petitioner's position within such permissible operation. Here, the respondents have specifically pleaded the statutory bar contained in Rule 14(7) of the 2010 Rules, which provides that the Selection Committee shall not maintain or recommend any select/waiting list for any future vacancy caused on account of resignation by any selectee after appointment.
11. The Tribunal cannot issue a direction that has the effect of overriding an express statutory mandate. If the governing Rules restrict operation HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 462/2020 of any list beyond a defined point, then the Court/Tribunal cannot substitute its own notion of equity for the statutory command. The petitioner's prayer, in substance, seeks to extend the life and operation of the selection mechanism beyond what is contemplated by the Rules, and such a relief is impermissible.
12. Further, even on the petitioner's own showing, the last wait-listed candidate under ST category has secured 59.4493 marks, whereas the petitioner has 58.3292 marks, i.e., the petitioner is below the last wait- listed candidate. The respondents have cited the judgment dated 17.05.2019 in SWP No. 2021/2017 (Liyakat Hussain Baniya), laying down that a candidate who secures merit below the wait-listed candidate cannot claim selection/appointment against the post in the event the wait-listed candidate does not join.
13. This principle appeals to logic and fairness as well: if appointment is claimed on the strength of a waiting list, the claim cannot travel beyond the waiting list. A person not borne on the waiting list cannot be treated as "next in line" merely because some persons above did not join; otherwise, the process would become indeterminate and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 462/2020 would amount to continuing recruitment through an expired list, which the law does not countenance.
14. The petitioner has not demonstrated any illegality in the conduct of selection, any manipulation of merit, or any discrimination against him vis-à-vis similarly placed candidates. No material has been placed to show that persons with marks lower than the petitioner have been appointed under the same selection. In absence of such pleading and proof, the Tribunal cannot presume arbitrariness. The mere fact that posts may be vacant, by itself, is not sufficient to grant appointment to a candidate who is below the prescribed cut-offs and not within the recommended lists.
15. It is also to be remembered that public employment must be filled strictly as per rules and in a transparent manner. If vacancies exist, the lawful method ordinarily is either by operating a valid list within its permissible scope or by initiating a fresh recruitment, depending upon the Rules and administrative decision. The petitioner's prayer, if granted, would effectively bypass the statutory regime and dilute the sanctity of cut-off/waiting list, which is neither legally sustainable nor administratively sound.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 13 :: TA 462/2020
16. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that: (i) the petitioner secured marks below the cut-off for selection as well as below the last wait- listed candidate and thus has no enforceable right to seek appointment under the said selection; (ii) the relief prayed would amount to directing operation/extension of selection/waiting list beyond what is permissible under the governing Rules, particularly in view of Rule 14(7) of the 2010 Rules; (iii) no arbitrariness, illegality, mala fides or hostile discrimination is made out warranting interference by this Tribunal.
17. Accordingly, the Transfer Application 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