Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Ajay Kumar vs Sher-E-Kashmir University Of ... on 21 April, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 257/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 257/2025
Reserved on: - 14.10.2025
Pronounced on: - 21.04.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. Ajay Kumar Aged +35 Years s/0 Shri Tilak Raj R/O Village
Purkhoo (Garhi-More) Post Office Domana, Tehsil & District
Jammu (JK).
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Vinod Kotwal)
Versus
1. Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology
of Jammu, Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180 009 through its
Registrar.
2. Dr. Banwari Lal Misra, Vice Chancellor, Sher-e-Kashmir
University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology of Jammu,
Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180 009.
3. Shri B.B. Gupta, Registrar, Sher-e-Kashmir University of
Agricultural Sciences & Technology of Jammu, Main Campus,
Chatha, Jammu-180 009.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 257/2025
4. Dr. Karnail Singh, Chairman selection Committee (Drivers) C/O
Registrar. Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences &
Technology of Jammu, Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180 009
5. Bikesh Singh S/O Sh. Balbir Singh R/0 Irrigation Colony, W.
No.1, Kathua, Driver C/O Assistant Registrar (R&C) SKUAST-J.
Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180 009.
6. Mohd. Iqbal S/O Sh. Mohd, Gani R/O Chiryai P.O. Chiryai
District & Tehsil Udhampur (Driver) Registrar (R&C) SKUAST-J
Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180 009. C/O Assistant
7. Chanchal Singh S/O Pritam Singh R/O Old Satwari, near Nath
Colony, Jammu (Driver) C/O Assistant Registrar (R&C)
SKUAST-J. Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180 009.
8. Amit Sharma S/O Sh. Chuni Lal Sharma R/O Old Satwari, Chatha
Road, Tehsil & District Jammu, (Driver) C/O Assistant Registrar
(R&C) SKUAST-J. Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180 009.
9. Vijay Kumar 5/0 Sh. Jeet Lal R/O Sai Khurd (Sardari) P.O. Sai
Kalan, Tehsil R.S. Pura, (Driver) C/O Assistant Registrar (R&C)
SKUAST-J. Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180 009.
10.Narinder Paul Singh S/O S. Amar Singh R/O Basti Govindpura,
Simbal More, P.O. Rattian, Tehsil R.S. Pura District Jammu,
(Driver) C/O Assistant Registrar (R&C) SKUAST-J. Main
Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180 009.
11.Jagan Nath S/O Sh. Mania R/O Mang, P.O. Basantgarh, Tehsil
Ramnagar District Udhampur (J&K) (Driver) C/O Assistant
Registrar (R&C) SKUAST-J. Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180
009.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 257/2025
12.Mohd. Aslam S/O Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din R/O Danna Dakhran
Tehsil Mandi District Poonch, Post Office: Fatehpur (Driver) C/O
Assistant Registrar (R&C) SKUAST-J. Main Campus, Chatha,
Jammu-180 009.
13.Manohar Lal S/O Sh. Bansi Lal R/O Channi Himmat, Sector No. 1
A Extension, Jammu-180 005 (Driver) C/O Assistant Registrar
(R&C) SKUAST-J. Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180 009.
14.Barkat Ali S/O Shah Mohd. R/O Deon Mohra Pacholi P/O
Purmandal Tehsil & District Samba (Driver) C/O Assistant
Registrar (R&C) SKUAST-J. Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180
009.
15.Prem chand S/O Sh. Mulkh Raj R/O Khoui-Millan (Samwan) P.O.
Pallanwala Tehsil Akhnoor J&K-181 204 (Driver) C/O Assistant
Registrar (R&C) SKUAST-J. Main Campus, Chatha, Jammu-180
009.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Anil Khajuria)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: TA 257/2025
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The SWP No.3438/2010 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.257/2025 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) "A WRIT OF CERTIORARI and thereby quash and set aside the impugned University Order No: 36(Est) of 2010 Dated:
22.07.2010 issued by the respondent. no.1 through respondent no.4 i.e. the Registrar on the recommendation of the Selection Committee headed by the respondent no.3 and approved by the respondent no.2, whereby the private respondents 5 to 15 have been appointed as Drivers/Tractor Drivers, in an illegal, un-
constitutional and arbitrary manner and against the law and the relevant rules;
AND ALSO:
b) A WRIT OF MANDAMUS and thereby command and direct the respondents to advertise the resultant vacant posts afresh after first declaring the criteria and the method of recruitment and initiate the selection process afresh and declare the Select List first disclosing the merit obtained by the candidates and only thereafter issue appointment orders in favour of the eligible candidates including the petitioner and further appoint the petitioner as a Driver with all the consequential service benefits including the seniority etc. the AND ALSO HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 257/2025
c) A WRIT OF PROHIBBITION and thereby prohibit and restrain the respondents from granting any service benefits such as confirmation, increments, seniority or making any further promotions such as release of higher grade etc. in favour of the private respondents on the basis of the impugned selection and appointment order, in any manner, whatsoever.
Any other appropriate writ, order or direction that may be deemed fit and proper and to which this Hon'ble Court may find the petitioner is entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Petitioner may also be awarded the costs of this petition.
3. The present matter arises out of SWP No. 3438/2010, which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and has been registered as T.A. No. 257/2025 before this Tribunal. The applicant has called in question University Order No. 36(Est) of 2010 dated 22.07.2010 whereby private respondents came to be appointed as Drivers/Tractor Drivers in Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology of Jammu. The substantive relief sought is quashment of the said order and a direction for fresh advertisement and fresh selection.
4. The case set up by the applicant is that the respondent-University issued Advertisement Notification No. 06(Est) of 2008 dated HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 257/2025 16.12.2008 for, inter alia, 11 posts of Driver, of which 6 were in Open Merit category. The prescribed qualification was shown as "Literate with valid hill driving licence." The applicant claims that he possessed matriculation qualification, valid hill driving licence and about 12 years' driving experience, and therefore applied under the Open Merit category. It is his further case that after the first written test was cancelled, the written/screening test was ultimately held on 16.05.2010, which he qualified, whereafter he was called for driving test and interview on 21.07.2010.
5. The principal grievance of the applicant is that the selection criteria had not been disclosed in the advertisement notice; that no marks were earmarked in advance for written test, qualification, experience or interview; and that only on 15.07.2010, shortly before the driving test/interview, candidates were asked to bring experience certificates, thereby showing that weightage for experience was introduced midway through the process. According to him, this amounted to changing the rules of the game after commencement of the selection process. He further alleges that though he performed well in the written test, driving test and interview, he was not selected, whereas HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 257/2025 private respondents with inferior merit and ability were appointed. He also alleges that the select list was never properly published before issuance of appointment orders, that the exercise was conducted in a surreptitious manner, and that even appointments as Tractor Drivers were made although the advertisement was for Drivers.
6. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have resisted the claim. Their primary stand is that the applicant, having participated in the entire process without demur, is estopped from challenging it after having failed in selection. They further plead that the selection criteria had in fact been notified much before the screening test vide Notification 2(Est) of 2009 dated 10.09.2009 and communication dated 28.01.2010, and that for the post of Driver the notified criteria comprised 40 points for screening/written test, 20 points for experience, 10 points for qualification and 100 points for interview. They also state that since 1403 applications were received and 1115 candidates were found eligible, shortlisting had to be done, and the University adopted a 1:5 ratio, also calling all candidates who had secured the same marks as the last shortlisted candidate in each category. According to them, the select list was pasted on the notice board, uploaded on the University HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 257/2025 website and sent for newspaper publication, and the selected candidates joined on different dates, not on 22.07.2010 itself.
7. The private respondents have also supported the selection and submit that no enforceable right of the applicant has been violated; that mere participation in the process or being called for interview does not confer any right to appointment; and that the selection was made by a duly constituted committee on the basis of merit assessed through written test, qualification, experience, driving test and interview. They also dispute the applicant's assertion that he had topped the written test, stating that the result list relied upon by him was in alphabetical order.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the material on record. The questions that arise for consideration are: whether the selection process suffered from such illegality, arbitrariness or lack of transparency as would warrant interference; whether the criteria was changed midway; and whether the appointment of private respondents deserves to be quashed.
9. At the outset, one aspect is clear. The applicant admittedly participated in the recruitment process from start to finish. He applied HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 257/2025 pursuant to the advertisement, appeared in the written/screening test, qualified the same, and thereafter also appeared in the driving test and interview held on 21.07.2010. The challenge has come only after he was not selected and private respondents were appointed vide order dated 22.07.2010. That factual position is not in dispute.
10. The main plank of the applicant's case is that the criteria was not disclosed in advance and that weightage for experience was introduced belatedly. However, the respondents have specifically pleaded that the criteria for the post of Driver had already been notified prior to the screening test itself vide Notification 2(Est) of 2009 dated 10.09.2009 and letter dated 28.01.2010, and that the same was also displayed on the notice board and University website. They have also set out the breakup of marks in their reply. On the other hand, beyond making a general assertion to the contrary, the applicant has not placed any cogent material on record to demonstrate that no such criteria existed or that the respondents' stand is factually incorrect. Once there is a specific pleading by the employer that the criteria stood notified much before the written test, the burden shifted HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 257/2025 upon the applicant to produce material sufficient to dislodge that stand. That burden has not been discharged.
11. Even otherwise, the record shows that before the interview/driving test the applicant had been specifically asked to bring his experience certificates. Therefore, at the very least, before the final stage of selection he was aware that experience was going to be taken into account. Yet he chose to participate in the final stage without protest and only after his non-selection did he assail the process. In service jurisprudence, a candidate who knowingly takes a chance in a selection cannot ordinarily be permitted to turn around after failure and challenge the very procedure to which he had subjected himself. In the facts of the present case, that principle squarely applies.
12. The next submission of the applicant is that he was more meritorious and that some selected candidates were not as competent in driving as he was. This plea, however, remains wholly unsubstantiated. Mere self-assessment by the applicant that he drove better or performed better in interview cannot be accepted as proof of arbitrariness. The final selection was admittedly not based on written test alone; according to the respondents it was a composite assessment of written HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 257/2025 test, qualification, experience, driving test and interview. The applicant has not produced the final comparative merit position, the marks obtained by him vis-à-vis the selected candidates, or any material from the record of the Selection Committee to show that candidates lower in overall merit were selected over him. In absence of such concrete material, this Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority over the assessment made by a duly constituted Selection Committee.
13. The allegations of mala fides, favoritism and bias made by the applicant are also too bald to merit acceptance. He has alleged that one selected candidate could not drive properly, another lived in the neighbourhood of the Chairman, and that extraneous considerations prevailed. These are serious allegations, but they are unsupported by specific particulars or reliable evidence. A charge of mala fides cannot rest on conjectures, suspicion or personal perception. It must be pleaded with precision and proved by cogent material. That is completely lacking here. On the contrary, the respondents have placed on record that the driving test and interview were conducted by a duly constituted committee comprising several members, including an HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 257/2025 outside expert. In such circumstances, vague allegations against the process are not enough to invalidate a completed selection.
14. The applicant has also urged that the select list was never published and that appointment orders were issued in haste. This stand too stands specifically denied by the respondents, who have pleaded that the select list was prepared and issued, pasted on the notice board, uploaded on the University website, and also sent to the Directorate of Information for publication in newspapers. They have also denied that the selected candidates joined on 22.07.2010 itself, asserting that they joined on different dates. Here again, the applicant has not placed any convincing material to prove the contrary. The mere fact that he came to know of the appointments after issuance of appointment order is not sufficient, by itself, to hold that there was no publication of the select list at all.
15. The challenge to the shortlisting ratio also does not persuade this Tribunal. The respondents have explained that out of 1403 applicants, 1115 were found eligible, and therefore it was impracticable to call all candidates for driving test and interview. They further state that a 1:5 ratio was adopted and, in addition, all candidates having the same HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 257/2025 marks as the last shortlisted candidate in a category were also called, which explains variation in category-wise numbers. The applicant has not produced any rule having statutory force to show that only a 1:3 ratio was mandatory or that deviation therefrom, in the facts of this recruitment, rendered the process illegal. The employer was entitled to adopt a rational shortlisting mechanism when the number of eligible candidates was very large, and the explanation furnished by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary on the face of it.
16. The contention that appointments were made as Tractor Drivers although only Driver posts were advertised also does not carry the matter further. The applicant has not placed any recruitment rule or statutory provision to show that "Driver" and "Tractor Driver" were distinct cadres requiring separate advertisement or separate qualification in the present recruitment. In the absence of supporting material, a bare pleading to that effect is insufficient to upset appointments which have otherwise been made pursuant to the same recruitment process.
17. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. The impugned appointments were made on 22.07.2010. The matter remained HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 257/2025 pending for years and now stands before this Tribunal after transfer. Thus, the appointments have held the field for almost sixteen years. Interference with a long-settled selection, particularly where no patent illegality has been demonstrated and no comparative merit record has been produced, would be wholly inequitable and contrary to sound service-law principles. Courts and Tribunals do not unsettle completed selections after such a long lapse of time unless the illegality goes to the root of the matter and is clearly established. That is not the case here.
18. On an overall consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant has failed to establish that the impugned selection was vitiated by illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides or procedural unfairness. The challenge is founded largely on suspicion, self-serving assertions and disputed allegations unsupported by convincing proof. The respondents, on the other hand, have furnished a consistent explanation regarding prior notification of criteria, shortlisting, constitution of the Selection Committee, preparation/publication of select list, and merit-based selection. No ground for interference is thus made out.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 15 :: TA 257/2025
19. Accordingly, the Transfer Application is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV