Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Gagandeep Singh vs Director General Of Police on 4 February, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 5816/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 5816/2021
Reserved on: - 03.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 04.02.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. Gagandeep Singh, age 27 years, S/o Sh. Bajant Singh, R/o Village
Nardi Tehsil Maira-Mandrian,District Jammu.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Sudershan Sharma)
Versus
1. State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary, Home Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, J&K Govt., Jammu.
3. Chairman, J&K Police recruitment Board, Jammu.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thapa, AAG)
ARUN
KUMAR
ARUN
2026.02.12
KUMAR
11:20:04
+05'30'
:: 2 :: TA 5816/2021
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.2473/2018 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.5816/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
"I. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus whereby directing the respondents to accord consideration to the case of applicant for his selection and appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) under RBA category, in the given facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the T.A. are that the applicant holds a B.Sc. (Non-Medical) degree and is a resident of Tehsil Maira-Mandiran, which was declared a backward area in 1994. It is averred in the T.A. that Respondent No. 2 issued Advertisement Notification No. Pers-A-400/2016/75303-403 dated 30.12.2016 inviting applications from permanent residents of J&K for 658 posts of Sub Inspector in Executive and Armed Wings of J&K Police. In the Executive Wing, 482 posts were advertised with the following break-up: OM 275, RBA 96, ST 48, SC 39, ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 3 :: TA 5816/2021 ALC 15, OSC 9 (Annexure-C). The applicant, being fully eligible and belonging to RBA category, applied for SI (Executive) under RBA category within the stipulated time on the prescribed format and obtained proper receipt. It is further averred that the applicant was called for Physical Standard Test on 14.09.2017 at 10:00 AM at Gulshan Ground, Jammu, for which an Admit Card (Annexure-D) was issued. The applicant qualified PST under RBA category and submitted the RBA certificate during document scrutiny, which was accepted by the respondents. Subsequently, the applicant was called for written test under RBA category on 24.06.2018 at Govt. Polytechnic, Bikram Chowk, Jammu, and based on merit was shortlisted for viva-voce on 07.08.2018; the applicant's name appears at Serial No. 136 under RBA category (Annexure-E). It is further averred that on 31.11.2018, during viva-voce proceedings, the Interview Committee did not consider the applicant's RBA certificate and directed the applicant to submit an application for interview under Open Merit category; consequently, the interview was conducted under OM despite the applicant's RBA status. The applicant had applied for the RBA certificate on 23.08.2017, which was issued on 24.08.2017--prior to the PST. It is averred ARUN that under Reservation Rules, a candidate belonging to a reserved category KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 4 :: TA 5816/2021 who indicates such category in the application form may produce the requisite certificate before finalization of selection; however, in the present case, while the respondents initially accepted the applicant's RBA candidature throughout PST and written examination stages, they arbitrarily shifted the interview to Open Merit category despite the valid RBA certificate. It is averred that the respondents, without adhering to Reservation Rules, have denied the applicant's legitimate right to consideration and selection for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) under RBA category.
4. The respondents have filed their reply, in which it has been stated that applicant at the time of appearing in Physical Endurance Test produced his RBA certificate at the documentation counter which was issued to him on 24.08.2017 (after the last date fixed for submission of online application forms). It is further stated that the applicant after having applied for the post of SI in J&K Police in pursuance to PHQ J&K Advertisement Notice issued under endst No. Pers-A-400/2016/75303-403 dated 30.12.2016 under application No. 20069817 under RBA category appeared in Physical Endurance Test at Gulshan Ground Jammu on 14.09.2017 under Roll No. ARUN 117111102586. The applicant was accordingly called for viva-voce/ KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 5 :: TA 5816/2021 personality Assessment Test After having been shortlisted for Viva-voca/ personality Assessment Test. As per the contents of advertised notice, last date of submission of online application forms i.e. 16.02.2017 was the cutoff date for determining of eligibility with regard to educational qualification and relevant category. The applicant while appearing in Viva-voca/ personality Assessment Test before the board on 13.11.2018 at PHQ J&K Jammu produced his original RBA certificate issued to him on 24.08.2017 (after the last date fixed for submission of online application forms i.e. 16.02.2017) prompting the board to take an immediate decision in respect of his candidature in Open Merit instead of RBA category due to non production of valid RBA certificate which otherwise should have been issued to him well before the cutoff date fixed for submission of online application form i.e. 16.02.2017, in conformity with the decision taken in respect of candidate which had already been decided by the Police Recruitment Board vide order issued under endst No. PHQ/PRB- SI/24/2018/543-46 dated 15.10.2018 to be considered under Open Merit instead of reserved category due to non production of his valid category certificate. It is further stated that the applicant feeling aggrieved, ARUN approached the Hon'ble High Court of J&K at Jammu through the medium KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 6 :: TA 5816/2021 of instant writ petition in which the Hon'ble Court passed an interim order dated 04.12.2018 with the directions to the respondents to consider the applicant for the post of sub inspector in RBA Category subject to objections and till next date of hearing. Accordingly the candidature of the applicant has been decided by the Board to be considered under RBA category in compliance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court passed in the instant category in compliance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court passed in the instant writ petition with a condition that result of the applicant shall be kept in a sealed cover till further orders.
5. Mr. Sudershan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Respondent No.2 issued Advertisement Notification No. Pers-A-400/2016/75303-403 dated 30.12.2016 inviting applications for Sub-Inspector posts, with 96 vacancies reserved for RBA in the Executive Wing. The applicant applied in time, submitted the application in the prescribed form and obtained due receipt, thereby initiating a legitimate claim for consideration under RBA. The applicant cleared the Physical Standard Test held on 14.09.2017 and submitted the RBA certificate at document scrutiny, which was accepted by the respondents. The applicant ARUN was thereafter called for the written test (24.06.2018) and, on merit, was KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 7 :: TA 5816/2021 shortlisted for viva-voce and his name appears at Serial No.136 under RBA (Annexure-E). As such, the applicant was treated as an RBA candidate until the viva stage. Despite initial acceptance of his RBA status by the respondents, the interview panel erroneously and arbitrarily directed the applicant to be interviewed under Open Merit on 31.11.2018. It is further contended by the learned counsel that it is not a case of the respondents that the applicant does not fall in the aforesaid category of reservation nor it is the case of the respondents that there is any dispute regarding authenticity and validity of the same, but the objection which has been taken by the respondent Board is that the applicant has supplied the requisite certificate after the cut off date and as per the condition of the advertisement, the candidature of the applicant was liable to be rejected. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that it is not a case where the applicant had acquired any eligibility qualification or any other educational qualifications of any sort after the cut of date, so as to disentitle him from being considered for the aforesaid post. But it is a case, where the applicant was belonging to the backward area right from the beginning, from the time of his birth and his dependency under the reserve category of RBA is not in dispute, as such, ARUN even if the applicant did not append the requisite certificate regarding which KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 8 :: TA 5816/2021 the status he enjoyed even prior to the cut off date, then he could not have been rendered ineligible only because of this reason, even if there are some procedural provisions in the advertisement in this regard.
17. Learned counsel also submitted that law in this regard has now evolved after various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts including the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, wherein it has been held that such conditions are not stringent conditions unless filing of a certificate after the cut off date is pertaining to some eligibility qualifications like that of educational qualifications or experience but in such like cases of caste certificate, OBC certificates, Ex-servicemen certificates and ALC certificates, the aforesaid conditions would not operate in a stringent manner. In this regard, he referred to judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman JEE, 2005 (9) SCC 779 and Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another, 2016 (4) SCC 754, a judgement of Delhi High Court in Sunil Pooja Vs. Staff Selection Commission in WP (C) No. 8201 of 2019 and a Division Bench judgement of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in WP (C) No. 408 of 2022 in the case of Saima Ashraf Vs. UT of J&K to contend ARUN KUMAR that mere fact that the certificate was given to respondent/recruiting agency ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 9 :: TA 5816/2021 after the cut off date would not have any effect and it is not a hard and fast rule. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula and it is always to be seen and considered in the light of facts and circumstances of each and every case whether an applicant can be granted the benefit even if a document has been supplied after the cut-off date.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that as per the advertisement, the last date for submission of online application forms, i.e., 16.02.2017, was the cut-off date for determining eligibility with regard to educational qualification and relevant category. The applicant's RBA certificate was issued on 24.08.2017, well after the cut-off, hence he was ineligible to claim RBA benefit. He further submitted that when the applicant appeared before the Board for Viva-Voce/Personality Assessment Test on 13.11.2018 at PHQ J&K, Jammu and produced his post cut off original RBA certificate dated 24.08.2017, the Board correctly and immediately treated his candidature under Open Merit instead of RBA, due to non-production of a valid category certificate as on the cut-off date. Since the applicant's RBA certificate post-dates the cut-off, he cannot claim reservation benefits, and the Board's decision to treat him under Open Merit ARUN KUMAR was lawful, consistent, and non-arbitrary ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 10 :: TA 5816/2021
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
9. Before proceeding to decide the case, it would be apposite to mention here that vide order dated 04.12.2018, the Hon'ble High Court as an interim direction had directed the respondents to consider the applicant for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the RBA category. In compliance of this order, the respondents have treated the candidature of the applicant under RBA category and result of the applicant kept in a sealed cover.
9. The only issue involved in the present case is that as to whether the applicant could have been disqualified/rendered ineligible by the respondent-Board on the ground that he furnished the RBA category certificate which was dated after the cut of date prescribed in the advertisement i.e. 16.02.2017. In the application form, the applicant had so incorporated that he applied against the reserved category of RBA. The process of selection was that initially a written examination was to be conducted and, thereafter scrutiny of documents was to be held and after the scrutiny of the documents, the final result was to be declared. The applicant appeared in Physical standard Test and furnished his RBA certificate at the ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 11 :: TA 5816/2021 documentation counter, at that time no objection was raised by the respondents, It was only after completion of Written test, at the stage of viva voce/personal assessment test, the respondents objected to furnishing of RBA certificate dated 24.08.2017 (issued after the last date fixed for submission of online application forms i.e. 16.02.2017). Undoubtedly, the applicant submitted the aforesaid RBA category certificate to the interview Committee, which was issued more than a year before the scrutiny of documents and was not considered by the Scrutiny Committee and therefore, the applicant was not considered against the aforesaid reserved category and rather he was declared to be ineligible.
21. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to authenticity or validity of the aforesaid certificate and the same has been issued by the competent authority. However, the only issue is that the applicant had submitted the aforesaid certificate after the cut off date and whether he could be considered against the reserved post or not.
22. Therefore, it would be appropriate to discuss the law on the issue with reference to judgements cited at the bar.
ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 12 :: TA 5816/2021
23. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to a judgement of Delhi High Court in Ms. Pushpa's case (supra). In that case, the petitioner applied for the post of Staff Nurse under the OBC category and the last date for submission of application form in the advertisement was fixed for 21.01.2018 and the certificate was not accepted as no proof was furnished by the petitioner therein to satisfy the authorities that she belongs to the said category since she did not attach the certificate because although she had applied for the certificate to the SDM for grant of OBC certificate but it was issued after the cut-off date and therefore, the aforesaid petition of aforesaid Ms. Pushpa (supra) was allowed by the Delhi High Court on the ground that the petitioner therein was not at fault.
24. In Dolly Chhanda's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing a case of a girl, who was a daughter of an Ex-Serviceman and was discharged from Armed Forces on the ground of disability also discussed the aforesaid issue as to what is the effect of filing the certificate after the cutoff date. In that case, during the course of scrutiny of papers, it was revealed that the certificate pertained to "Disabled/killed in war/hostilities" and therefore, was not found to be eligible, whereas, it ought ARUN KUMAR to have been under the ground of "Permanently Disabled" and thereafter, a ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 13 :: TA 5816/2021 fresh certificate was obtained by the aforesaid petitioner of that case and in that case, relief was granted to her. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the principle of law observed that it is a general rule that when a person applied for any post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose, but at the same time depending upon the facts of each and every case, there can also be relaxation in the manner of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the domain of procedure and any infraction of any rule relating to the submission of the proof need not necessarily result in rejection of the candidature. In other words, it would mean that there can be no straightjacket formula for rejecting a candidature only on the aforesaid reason.
25. In Ram Kumar Gijroya's case (supra), the appellant had sought appointment to the post of Staff Nurse under the OBC category, but the said certificate was not submitted with the application and submitted after the last date mentioned in the advertisement. The appellant was therefore not selected on that ground, but the Supreme Court held that the candidature of those candidates, who belonged to reserved categories, could not be rejected ARUN KUMAR simply on account of late submission of caste certificate. The Supreme Cout ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 14 :: TA 5816/2021 held that the purpose of certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to a particular category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to the said category. It was not as if the petitioners therein did not belong to the reserved category prior to cut off date or that they acquire the status of belonging to the said category only on the date of issuance of the certificate. It was held that necessitating upon a certificate to be issued prior to the cut off date would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rational objective sought to be achieved.
26. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in the case of Saima Ashraf case, while dealing with the case of the petitioner therein who had submitted her domicile certificate after the cut off date, has held that petitioner was already the domicile of UT of Jammu & Kashmir in terms of RBA certificate supported by a Permanent Residence Certificate, therefore, the proof thereof in the form of the domicile certificate obtained and submitted after the cut off date by the petitioner was found valid and she was directed to be included in the merit list for consideration for her appointment under the RBA category. In so far as the judgement of ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 15 :: TA 5816/2021 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar's case (supra) is concerned, the said judgment is not applicable in the present case and is distinguishable.
27. In the instant case, the applicant is a resident of backward area and it cannot be said that he had obtained the qualification after the cut off date. The authenticity and validity of the certificate dated 24.08.2017, which the applicant had produced at the time of scrutiny of documents is not in dispute and nor it is in dispute that the applicant did not produce the aforesaid certificate. Therefore, it is purely a matter of procedure and the applicant cannot be rendered ineligible for the post in question because of the aforesaid reason in the light of the supra judgements cited at the bar and settled law.
28. In view of the above, the present T.A. is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to accord consideration to the case of the applicant for his selection and appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) under RBA category. In case, he is found to be selected, appointment order be issued forthwith. The applicant shall also be entitled to notional seniority from the date other candidates from the selection had joined based on their ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:20:04 +05'30' :: 16 :: TA 5816/2021 merit. Let the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
30. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/Arun/
ARUN
KUMAR
ARUN
2026.02.12
KUMAR
11:20:04
+05'30'