Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Neelam Devi vs D/O Civil Secretariat, J& K on 3 February, 2026
:: 1 :: T.A. No. 61/7335/2020
Reserved on 07.11.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Jammu Bench, Jammu
Hearing through video conferencing
Transferred Application No. 61/7335/2020
Pronounced on :- This the 03rd day of February 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. Neelam Devi, aged 28 years, D/o Shrikehar Singh, R/o Bhullari
P.O. Dhaggar, Tehsil Bani, District Kathua.
...applicant
(Through Advocate: Mr. Nonu S Khera)
Versus
1. J&K Service Selection Board, Sehkari Bhawan, Rail Head
Complex, Bahu Plaza, Jammu through its Secretary.
2. State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Government,
Industries and Commerce Department, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu/Srinagar.
3. Director, Handloom, Udyog Bhawan, Bahu Plaza, Jammu.
...Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. Rajesh Thapa, A.A.G./Mr. Hunar Gupta,
D.A.G.)
ARUN
KUMAR
ARUN
2026.02.12
KUMAR
11:38:52
+05'30'
:: 2 :: T.A. No. 61/7335/2020
ORDER
Per:- Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member The applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir by filing SWP No. 705 of 2018 praying for the following reliefs:-
"A) Certiorari quashing the entry made in member remarks column Annexure A to the select list where under recommendation relating to selection of applicant has been withheld, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
B) Mandamus commanding;
i) Respondent No. 1 to release the
recommendation in favour of the applicant and make the same to Respondents 2 & 3.
ii) Respondents 2 & 3 to appoint applicant to the post of Head Weaver for which she has been selected, from the date recommendation was made but illegally withheld, alongwith consequential benefits of pay & seniority."
2. After the reorganization of State of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and in view of the Notification No. G.S.R. 267 (E) dated 29.04.2020 read with notification No. G.S.R. 317 (E) dated 28.05.2020 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis regarding service disputes of the employees of UT of J&K and Ladakh was conferred upon this Tribunal and while considering the said fact, the record of Service Writ Petition No. 705 of 2018 was ordered to be transferred by the Hon'ble High Court to this Tribunal on 18.07.2020 ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:38:52 +05'30' :: 3 :: T.A. No. 61/7335/2020 and renumbered as Transferred Application (in short T.A.) No. 7335 of 2020.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant competed in Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 2016 dated 30.06.2016 under the reserved Scheduled Tribe (ST) category for the post of Head Weaver, the applicant was selected after undergoing the selection process for the post in the Industries & Commerce Department, Division Cadre Jammu, and a provisional select list (Annexure B) shows her selection. Respondent No.1 issued the selection list (Annexure C) which, although showing the applicant as selected under ST, mistakenly showed the selection for the RBA category and withheld recommendation of the applicant allegedly seeking clarification regarding the applicant's technical qualification. It is stated that in the advertisement the requirement was Diploma in weaving from Industrial Training Institutes (ITI), but ITIs in Jammu & Kashmir are not imparted weaving training since 1982; instead, diplomas and degrees in textiles (including weaving) are now offered by Government Polytechnic Colleges. It is further stated that the applicant holds a 3- year Diploma and a B.Tech in Textile Designing/Textile Engineering (Annexures D & E). It is also stated that earlier, SWP 892/16 raised the same issue, challenging insistence on an ITI diploma despite no ITI weaving courses since 1982, and the Hon'ble High Court had allowed similarly placed candidates to participate in the selection process, permitting their selection and appointment. ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:38:52 +05'30' :: 4 :: T.A. No. 61/7335/2020
4. Reply has been filed by respondent No. 1 - JKSSB, in which it has been stated that vide notification No. 03 of 2016 dated 30.06.2016 applications were invited for the post of Head Weaver for various State, Divisional and District Cadre post under Jammu and Kashmir Special Recruitment Rules 2015 vide SRO 202 of 2015 dated 30.06.2015. After completion of the selection process, the Board issued the selection list and forwarded the same to the indenting department. It is stated that the applicant applied for the said post under Scheduled Tribe category Divisional Cadre Jammu (Industries and Commerce Department against item No. 196. The prescribed qualification for the post of Head Weaver was Matric with ITI in Weaving. The applicant possess Diploma in Textile Designing was figured in the select list at Serial No. 01 in the ST category but her recommendation was kept withheld subject to clarification with regard to her technical qualification. The applicant was ineligible for the aforesaid post for not having requisite qualification. However, the Board vide communication dated 15.07.2019 sought clarification with respect to qualification of the applicant i.e. Diploma in Textile Designing and its applicability for the said post, but no clarification was received. It is further stated that participation of the applicant in the written test or interview or the fact that their names had in merit list would not alter the situation and make eligible for the post. It has also been stated that Govt. conveyed the Administrative Council Decision No. 01/1/2022 dated 29th January 2022 whereby all the ARUN posts referred to JKPSC/JKSSB prior to 30.10.2019, for which KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:38:52 +05'30' :: 5 :: T.A. No. 61/7335/2020 selections have not been finalized till date, as also the posts in which there are litigations and the cases are pending in Hon'ble court shall be deemed to have been withdrawn with immediate effect.
5. In the reply filed by respondents No. 2 & 3, it has been stated that the applicant has done 3 years Diploma and also B. Tech in Textile Designing Textile Engineering respectively as has been admitted by the applicant in her transfer application. It is further stated that as per Recruitment Rules notified in the year 1993 and SRO 164, which envisages the minimum qualification for direct recruitment for the posts of Head Weaver, which is Matric with ITI in Weaving, as such the applicant having 3 years Diploma and B.Tech in Textile Designing and Textile Engineering respectively, does not possess the requisite educational qualification for the said post. It is also stated that earlier some candidates posing Diploma in Handloom Technology from IIHT, Varanasi have been appointed as Head Waver on the recommendation of JKSSB in pursuance to Court directions. It is still further stated that a Writ Petition i.e. SWP No. 892 of 2016 titled Bharat Bhushan & Ors was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking a direction to Secretary, Service Selection Recruitment Board to allow the applicants therein to participate in the interview which was being conducted by the recruiting agency for the post of Head Weaver, advertised vide Advertisement Notice No. 03 dated 28.12.2012. The Hon'ble High Court vide interim order dated 30.04.2016, permitted the applicants to participate in the interview as ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:38:52 +05'30' :: 6 :: T.A. No. 61/7335/2020 against the post of Head Weavers advertised vide advertisement Notification No. 03 of 2012 dated 28.12.2012.
6. The applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit, basically reiterating the facts stated in the T.A.
7. Mr. Nonu S Khera, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the action of respondents withholding the applicant's candidature is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He elaborated that since about 1982 no Industrial Training Institute (ITI) in the State has been awarding any Diploma in Weaving, the requirement of an ITI-issued diploma is non- existent in fact and therefore insistence of such a condition is arbitrary, unreasonable and defeats the plain object of the recruitment process.
8. Learned counsel further contended that technical education in the relevant trade has been organised under the aegis of the J&K State Board of Technical Education (JKSBTE) and that three-year Diplomas and Degrees are valid qualifications conferred by that competent authority; the applicant possesses both a Diploma and a Degree issued by JKSBTE and both certificates were annexed with her application.
9. Lastly, learned counsel prayed that the entry with regard to withholding of the recommendation of the applicant be quashed, the applicant's candidature be treated as valid in view of the JKSBTE ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:38:52 +05'30' :: 7 :: T.A. No. 61/7335/2020 Diploma and Degree on record, and that respondent no.1 be directed to consider and recommend the applicant for appointment in accordance with the rules and consistent precedents, together with such ancillary and consequential reliefs as the Court may deem fit.
10. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents stated that there are several factors that determine whether a candidate is eligible for appointment to a particular post or not. One of the factor is possession of the prescribed eligibility qualification, which in the instant case is possession of Matric with ITI, which the applicant does not possess. They further contended that mere participation of a candidate in a written test or interview or the fact that his or her name appeared in the merit list would not alter the situation and make them eligible for the post.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. Indisputably, the JKSSB issued advertisement notice No. 3 of 2016 dated 30.06.2016 for several posts, including one post of Head Weaver (item No. 196) in the Industries and Commerce department, for which the qualification prescribed therein was "Matric with ITI in Weaving". It is also an undisputed fact that the applicant possesses 3 years Diploma in Textile Designing and B. Tech in Textile Engineering, which are higher qualification than the prescribed qualification in the advertisement. The applicant is basically trying to convince this Court ARUN that the syllabus of handloom/weaving courses run by ITI in J&K and KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:38:52 +05'30' :: 8 :: T.A. No. 61/7335/2020 the syllabus of qualification held by the applicant i.e. 3 years Diploma in Textile Designing and B. Tech Degree in Textile Engineering are similar, as such, she should be granted appointment to the post of Head Weaver. However, possession of higher qualification or different qualification does not entitle a candidate to appointment in derogation of the specifically prescribed eligibility criteria.. It is a settled position of law that prescription of qualification for a post is a matter of recruitment policy, and the State as an employer is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility after taking into consideration the nature of job, aptitudes required for efficiency, discharge of duties, functionality of qualifications, course content leading to acquisition of qualification etc.
13. The contention of learned counsel that some candidates with Diploma in Handloom Technology were appointed will not assist the applicant, as she does not possess Diploma in Handloom Technology.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others vide judgement dated 05.12.2018 has held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:38:52 +05'30' :: 9 :: T.A. No. 61/7335/2020 regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine.
15. In the case of Vishal Khajuria Vs. Staff Selection Commission 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 12, the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh while observing that prescribing the requisite qualification for a particular post is the prerogative of the employer has held that a person not possessing prescribed qualifications can't be appointed even if they qualify all tests laid down for recruitment. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced below:-
"9. Needless to say that prescribing a requisite qualification and the qualification equivalent thereto for a particular job is the prerogative of the employer and the Courts are loath to enter into this arena and determine the qualifications which are equivalent to a particular qualification prescribed for recruitment to a post. In the instant case, the respondents have, in their wisdom, prescribed qualification of 10th standard or equivalent from recognized institute or board and they are well within their rights to lay down as to which other qualifications are to be treated as equivalent to the prescribed qualification. This has been done by the Government of India vide office memo dated 28th June, 1978. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that post of Constable is not such as would require the knowledge of Urdu of High School/Matriculation standard, a fortiori it would mean that the applicant possessing the qualification of Adeeb from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh does not possess the qualification of 10th or equivalent and therefore, is not eligible to be appointed as Constable (GD). This is notwithstanding the fact that he has provisionally participated in the selection process and has even made the grade. The eligibility for recruitment goes to the root of selection and the person, who does not possess the prescribed qualification, cannot be appointed against the post even if he has qualified all the tests laid down for such recruitment. The view which I have taken is fortified by the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of Zedha Kiran v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.24805 of 2013 decided on 25.05.2018."
ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:38:52 +05'30' :: 10 :: T.A. No. 61/7335/2020
16. In light of the foregoing discussion and governing legal principles, this T.A. is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Pending MAs are also dismissed.
17. No orders as to costs.
(Ram Mohan Johri) (Rajinder Singh Dogra) Administrative Member Judicial Member Arun...
ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.02.12 KUMAR 11:38:52 +05'30'