Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Ashwani Kumar vs D/O Techanical Education And Youth ... on 4 May, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 6055/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 6055/2021
Reserved on: - 29.07.2025
Pronounced on: - 04.05.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. Ashwani Kumar, aged 38 years S/o Sh. Ram Lal R/o Ward No. 6,
Jourian, Tehsil Jourian, District Jammu
2. Sunil Kumar, aged 31 years S/o Sh. Satpaul Bangotra R/o Village
Pallanwalla, Tehsil Khour. District Jammu
3. Kailash Singh Choudhary; 29 years S/o Sh. Krishan Lal R/o
Village Langerial, Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu
4. Ashwani Bali; aged 27 years S/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar Bali Ward
No. 4, Jourian, Tehsil Jourian, District Jammu
5. Tarsem Sharma; aged 34 years S/o Sh. Ram Dass Sharma R/o Ward
No. 16, Shiva Nagar, Kathua
6. Naveen Sharma; aged 30 years S/o Sh. Banarsi Sharma R/o Village
Chakkora, P.O. Jourian, Tehsil Khour, District Jammu
7. Neeraj Sharma; aged 36 years S/o Sh. Naresh Chander Sharma R/o
Mohalla Suthra Bawli, Ward No. 15, District Poonch
8 . Ruchika Sharma; aged 24 years D/o Sh. Sat Pal Sharma R/o H. No.
142, Ward No. 4, Mohalla Kama Khan, District Poonch
9. Sumit Kesar; aged 28 years S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Kesar R/o Ward
No. 15, Mohalla Suthra Bawli, District Poonch
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 6055/2021
10 . Zahied Sharief; aged 27 years S/o Mohd. Sharief R/o Village
Chella, Tehsil Mandi, District Poonch 000025
11. Ashok Kumar; aged 29 years S/o Sh. Prem Dass R/o Village
Serbala, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Udhampur
12. Sandeep Singh; aged 28 years S/o Sh. Jagdev Singh R/o H. No.
96, Ward No. 4, Court Road, Udhampur.
13. Maroof Ahmed, age 31 years, S/o Khadam Hussain, R/o Village
Dodaj, Tehsil Darhal District Rajouri.
(Advocate: Mr. Rahil Raja)
Versus
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner-cum-Secretary
to Government, Department of Technical Education, Youth Services
and Sports. J&K Government, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
2. J&K Public Service Commission through its Chairman Resham
Ghar Colony, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu.
3. Secretary J&K Public Service Commission Resham Ghar Colony,
Bakshi Nagar, Jammu.
4. Hilal Ahmad Dar
S/o Abdul Gani Dar
R/o Mufti Bagh, Harwan, Srinagar.
5. Ishtaq Ahmad Bhat
S/o Nazir Ahmad Bhat
R/o Alluchi Bagh Samboora.
Tehsil Pampore, District Pulwama.
6. Nusrat Rashid Tramboo
S/o Abdul Rashid Tramboo
R/o not disclosed in select list
7. Mohd. Aarif Bhat
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 6055/2021
S/o Mohd. Ramzan Bhat
R/o Naseer Abad Chinkipora, Sopore District Baramulla, Kashmir
8. Khan Muneer Aslam
S/o Mohd. Aslam Khan
R/o Sheikhpora, P.O. Ompura, District Budgam, Kashmir.
9. Mudasir Nabi Sheikh
S/o Gh. Nabi Sheikh
R/o Batapora Kanhama Magam, Tehsil Bewah, Distruict Budgam
10. Mohd. Ibrahim
S/o Abdul Aziz
C/o Lone General Store,
Main Bazar, Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch.
11. Taqdir Singh
S/o Sh. Jagdish Singh
R/o Old Satwari, Jammu, Near Peoples Academy High School, Tehsil
and District Jammu
12. Sanjeev Jamwal
S/o Sh. Bir Singh Jamwal,
52-A Hazipura, Last Morh, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu
13. Shahid Hussain Kashoo
S/o Mohd. Hussain Kashoo
R/o Tral Pulwama, Kashmir
14. Omeshwar Sanyal
S/o Sh. Om Parkash Sanyal
R/o Village Sandhori Khanna Chargal, Tehsil and District Jammu;
15. Jaswant Singh
S/o Sh. Amar Nath
R/o Village (Bhagyana) Odhpur, Tehsil and District Doda
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 4 :: TA 6055/2021
16. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal
C/o Shri Girdhari Lal
Village Kamla Morh, P.O. Jaku, Tehsil & District Samba
17. Amir Akbar Mir
S/o Mohd. Akbar Mir
R/o Khursheed Abad, Delina Baramulla, Tehsil and District Baramulla
18. Shahnawaz Alum
S/o Assad Ullah Dar
R/o Sholipora,
Tehsil and District Budgam
19. Ravinder Kour
D/o S.Harbans Singh
R/o Kathi Darwaza. Rainawari, Srinagar
20. Sandeep Sharma
S/o Sh. Romesh Lal
R/o Ward No. 04, Krishna Colony, Near Peer Baba, Kathua
21. Rita Devi
D/o Sh. Balwan Kumar
R/o Village Pakhian Kangarail, District Jammu
22. Bilkeesa Bano
D/o Abdul Rehman Rather
R/o Opp. Grave Yard, Dariend Ganderbal, Tehsil Ganderbal, P.O.
Pandach
23.Syed Javaid Iqbal
S/o Syed Niyaz Ahmed
R/o M.U. Porn Puchal,
Near Masjid-e-Gousia, Lajurah, Pulwama
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 5 :: TA 6055/2021
24. Goutam Sharma
S/o Sh. Ved Parkash
R/o Mandiwala, P.O. Jourian, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu
25. Mohd. Owais Wani,
S/o Mohd. Rafiq Wani,
R/o Sariabala, Near Naaz Cinema,
Iqbal Park, Srinagar
26. Yasmeena Akhter
D/o Mohd. Maqbool Sofi
R/o Treran, Tehsil Tangmarg.
District Baramulla
27. Shabir Ahmad Wani
S/o Mohd. Abdullah Wani
R/o Hilal Abad, Nesba Sonawari, Bandipora
28. Pooja Danu
D/o Sh. Mohan Singh
R/o Main Gali, Shiv Mandi,
Ajju Danu Market, Mishriwala, Jammu
29. Sameer Ahmad Lone
S/o Gh. Mohi ud Din Lone
R/o Thindima, BPO Saloose,
PO Kreeki, Tehsil Kareeri, District Baramulla
30. Ghulam Hassan Sofi
S/o Gh. Mohd. Sofi
R/o Al Mustafa Colony,
Opp. IRP 13th BN, Khawaja Bagh, Baramulla
31. Vikesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Prem Nath
R/o Village Dhammi, P.O. Kandoli Bagrota, Tehsil & District Jammu
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 6 :: TA 6055/2021
32. Humeera Bashir
Dio Bashir Ahmad,
R/o Duleh Bagh, Soura,
Srinagar
33. Shashi Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Vidya Dhar Sharma,
R/o Ward No. 05,
Bear Ram Leela Kendra,
Mohalla Barrain, Udhampur
34. Neenu
D/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o Village Ratnuchak,
P.O. Gangyal, District Jammu
35. Mohd. Iqbal Mir
S/o Gh. Mohd. Mir
R/o Sanoora Kali Pora, Berwah,
Budgam
36. Sakeena Bashir
D/o Bashir Ahmad Lone
R/o Wadoora Payeen,
Tehsil Sopore, District Baramulla
37. Firduous Ahmed Lone
S/o Mohd. Ramzan Lone
R/o New Colony, Nowpora Jagir, Baramulla
38. Shahnaz Sarwar
S/o Mohd. Sarwar Dar
R/o Nowpora Kalan, Mohalla Eid Gah, Sopore
39.Chetan Sharma
S/o Sh. Kundan Lal Sharma
R/o VPO Sioti, Tehsil Sunderbani,
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 7 :: TA 6055/2021
District Rajouri
40. Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Manohar Lal
R/o Kuthyara, PO Sindra, Tehsil Bhaderwah, District Doda
41. Shazia Abas
D/o Syed Abas Razvi
R/o Old Gagribal Road,
Near Ex-DIG Gh. Rasool Wani, Dalgate
42. Raja Sajad Ahmad Bhat
S/o Sh. Ghulam Mohi ud Din Bhat
R/o Gulzarpora,
Near Government Higher Secondary School, Tehsil Awantipora,
District Pulwama
43. Sajad Ahmad Dar
S/o Bashir Ahmad Dar
R/o Sangrama Sopore, PO Sopore, Tehsil Sopore, District Baramulla
44. Sharda Devi
D/o Sh. Baraf Singh
C/o Sh. Shattee Singh, Near Government Middle School, Shakti
Nagar, W. No. 07, Gassian Talab, Udhampur
45. Areeb Shafi Malik
S/o Mohd. Shafi Malik
R/o Pamposh Colony,
Natipora, B Lone Mohalla,
Srinagar
46. Rohit Kumar
S/o Ashok Kumar
R/o Village Pouni Chak, Akalpur,
Jammu.
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 8 :: TA 6055/2021
47. Myser Maqbool
S/o Mohd. Maqbool Seh
R/o Dadipora Shurat, Kulgam
48. Roopali Slathia
D/o Sh. Jagdish Singh Slathia
R/o Village and Post Office Sidhra, Near Old Petrol Pump, Jammu
49. Gurpreet Kour
D/o Sh. Ranjit Singh
R/o Bhour Camp W. No. 01,
Near Government Girls High School,
District Jammu.
50. Masooda Akhter
Dio Mohd. Maqbool Sofi
R/o Treran, Tehsil Tangmarg. District Baramulla
51. Nusrat Majid
S/o Sb. Majid Wani
R/o Oudipora, PO Garipora,
Tehsil Awantipora, District Pulwama:
52. Sarfaraz Hussain Malik
S/o Mohd. Quazim Malik
R/o Dab Ganderbal, Block Wakura, Ganderbal
53. Syed Anayat Hussain
S/o Syed Asgar Shah
R/o Dab Sadath Ganderbal,
Tehsil Lar PO Wakura Via Tulmulla, District Ganderbal
54. Abida Nazir Khan
D/o Nazir Ahmad Khan
R/o Khan Village, H.No. C 23, Rustum Colony, Rajbagh, Srinagar
55. Vijay Sharma
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 9 :: TA 6055/2021
R/o Bharda Kalan,
PO Gundarnan, Akhnoor, Jammu
56. Tanpreet Singh Bagga
S/o Sh. Ajit Singh Bagga
R/o H.No. 79, Uttam Roadways,
Opp. PHE Office, Parade Ground,
Jammu.
57. Shariq Mohi ud Din Mir
S/o Sh. Mohi ud Din Mir
R/o Village Daropora, Block Kralpora, District Kupwara
58. Sahira Bano
D/o Mohd. Saleem
R/o Ashok Hair Dresser,
MH Food, Udhampur.
59. Safiya Mehdi
D/o Gh. Mehdi Bhat
R/o Khanda General Store Bazar, Mohalla Proper Budgam, Kashmir
60. Rafaqat Hussain Bhat
S/o Ab. Rashid Bhat
R/o Akhal, P/O Alhal, Tehsil & District Kulgam
61. Muzafar Ahmad Lone
S/o Mohd. Mukhtar Lone
R/o Choora Sopore, PO Kreeri, Tehsil Sopore, District Baramulla
62. Arshad Ayoob Lone
S/o Mohd. Ayoub Lone
Rio Rakhi Lajurah Kunjipora, PO Lajurah, Pulwama
63. Shah Jahan Mir
S/o Jahangir Ahmad Mir, R/o Gow Kadal, Mandi Bagh, Srinagar
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 10 :: TA 6055/2021
64. Mujeeb ur Rehman
S/o Ab. Rehman Dar
R/o Brakpora, PO Bulbul Nowgam, District Anantnag
65. Gurpreet Singh
S/o Sh. Hardeep Singh R/o Lane No. 03, Street No. 01, Opposite
Chatha Morh, Upper Gadigarh, Near St. Peter School, Jammu
66. Shazad Ahmed
S/o Maqsood Ahmed
R/o Ward No. 01, Raina Mohalla, Thannamandi, Rajouri
67.Nighat Parveen
D/o Noor Mohd. Shah Rio Asthan Mohallah, Kakpora,
Kashmir
68. Bandana Sharma
D/o Sh. Vaishno Dutt Sharma
R/o Village Karyal Brahmana,
PO Khari, Tehsil Bishnah
69. Showkat Sultan Sofi
S/o Mohd. Sultan Sofi
R/o Baghpora, Tehsil Awantipora,
PO Tokuna, Via Bijbehara;
District Pulwama.
70. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal
R/o Flat No. 12,
Level 3-B, SMVD University, Kakryal
71. Jigmet Lhanzes
S/o Tundup Dorje
R/o H.No. 161/1, Lane No. 2, Nasib Nagar, Janipur Jammu
72. Parveen Kumar
S/o Sh. Shiv Dayal
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 11 :: TA 6055/2021
R/o Village Galwaday Chack,
PO Gajansoo, Tehsil & District Jammu
73. Davood Ahmad Mir
S/o Gh. Nabi Mir
R/o Rakh Litter, PO Litter via Achan,
Tehsil & District Pulwama;
74. Asiya Habib
D/o Habib Ullah Shah
R/o 37-A, Gousi Mohalla, Umar Colony,
A Lal Bazar, Srinagar
75. Raj Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma
R/o Chack Bagwana, VPO Jourian, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu
76. Mudasir Rasool Dar
S/o Gh. Rasool Dar R/o Awaneera,
Tehsil and District Shopian
77. Koushal Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan Sharma
C/o Ravi Dutt Sharma,
Village Sangrampur, Tehsil & District Jammu
78. Mir Alam
S/o Mohd. Alam
R/o Village Bhera,
Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch;
79. Rayees Ahmed Bhat
S/o Gh. Mohd.Bhat
R/o Magam Handwara,
PO Magam, Tehsil Handwara, District Kupwara
80. Tawseef Ahmad Bhat
S/o Abdul Rashid Bhat
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 12 :: TA 6055/2021
R/o PO Yaripora, Tehsil & District Kulgam.
81. Arshad Hussain Bhat
S/o Abdul Rashid Bhat
R/o Kadder, PO Yaripora, Tehsil & District Kulgam
82. Rohit Sharma
S/o Sh. Pritam Dass Sharma
R/o Village Kathanu, Sunderbani, District Rajouri
83. Mohd. Mubashir Ali
S/o Ghulam Rasool Pulu
R/o Kalwal Mohalla, Ranawari, Srinagar
84. Masarat Nazir
S/o Nazir Ahmad Bhat
R/o Bathara Budgam,
Tehsil & District Budgam
85. Jigmet Stenzin
S/o Tsering Mutup
C/o Padma Wangial
H. No. 78, Opposite Gole, Talab Tillo Tehsil and District Jammu
86. Arif Hussain Mir
S/o Gul Mohd. Mir
R/o Zamalgam, Verinag.
Tehsil Dooru, District Anantnag
87. Qurat ul Ain Ali
S/o Ali Mohd. Tonga
R/o H. No. 10, Khawaja Bagh, Zakura,
Srinagar.
88. Ajay Singh
S/o Sh. Ajit Singh
R/o Village Maheen,
PO Smailpur, Taluka Kartholi, District Samba
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 13 :: TA 6055/2021
89. Asif Ahmad Wani
S/o Aftab Ahmad Wani
R/o Uri, Proper Tehsil Uri, District Baramulla
90. Akhter Murtaza
S/o Gull Mohd. Khan
R/o Fatehpora,
Tehsil and District Anantnag
91. Reema Chhetari
D/o Sh. Roop Bahadur
R/o H. No. 27, Village Gorkha Nagar,
PO Sheikh Nagar, Tehsil and District Jammu
92. Mudasir Sharief
S/o Sharief Ud Din
R/o Mohalla Qadeem, Khawaja Bagh, Baramulla
93. Tariq Ahmad
S/o Bashir Ahmad Khan
R/o Mirakh Abaad, Shalimar,
Srinagar
94. Harsimran Singh
S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh
R/o 5/14, Surya Vihar Bohri, Talab Tillo, Jammu
95. Pawan Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Sham Lal Sharma
Rio Mohalla Power House, H. No. 2, Ward No. 12,
Tehsil and District Poonch
96. Fozia Bashir
D/o Hakeem Bashir Ahmad
R/o Hakeem Bashir Ahmad, Tulla Mulla,
Ganderbal
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 14 :: TA 6055/2021
97. Showkat Rashid Bhat
S/o Abdul Rashid Bhat
R/o Akhal, PO Akhal, Tehsil and District Kulgam
98. Rayees Ahmad Bhat
S/o Ab. Rahim Bhat
R/o Zaloora, PO Sopore, District Baramulla
99. Shuja Hussain
S/o Sh. Gh. Hussain
R/o Whadatpora,
Opposite Salughter House, Ichgam Road, Budgam
100. Omeekehswar Sanyal
S/o Om Parkash Sanyal
R/o VPO Khanna Chargal,
Village Sandhori, Tehsil and District Jammu
101. Naseer Ahmad Bhat
S/o Gh. Mohd. Bhat
R/o Muffaq Burzahama, Hazratbal, Srinagar
102. Sartaj Hussain Rather
S/o Gh. Hassan Rather
R/o Kadder, PO Yaripora,
Tehsil and District Kulgam
103. Zahid Hussain Kashoo S/o Mohd. Abass Kashoo,
R/o Nabdipora, Hawal
Srinagar
104. Geetanjali Sharma
D/o Sh. Naresh Chandra Sharma
R/o Village Patyari, PO Janglote, Tehsil and District Kathua
105. Mustafa Ali
S/o Mohd. Abass
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 15 :: TA 6055/2021
C/o Sh. Balpinder Singh, H. No. 232, PO Lane Puran Nagar, New Plot,
Jammu
106. Ridhwan Ul Ramzan
S/o Mohd. Ramzanqbhat
R/o Pokatrasoo, Yaripora, Tehsil and District Kulgam
107. Mohd. Issa
S/o Sh. Abass Ali
R/o Alamdar Diagnostic Centre, Balkhang,
Leh, Ladakh
108. Mukhtar Ahmad Parry
S/o Ab. Salam Parry
R/o Wanhama, PO Diagam,
District Anantnag
109. Sonu
S/o Sh. Subash Kumar
R/o H. No. 16/A, Lane No. 02, Nasib Nagar, Janipur, Jammu
110. Gowher Ahmad Dar
S/o Abdul Rehman Dar
R/o Akhran Mir Bazar, Tehsil and District Kulgam
111. Roshan Lal Sharma
S/o Sh. Tarseem Kumar
R/o VPO Gadhyali, Guraha Mundian, Tehsil Hiranagar, District
Kathua.
112. Devinder Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Mohan Singh
R/o Chandsooma, Near Railway Station Kanispora, Tehsil and District
Baramulla
13. Abdul Rashid Bhar
S/o Late Ghulam Ahmad Bhat,
R/o Repora Lar, Ganderbal
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 16 :: TA 6055/2021
114. Pankaj Sasun
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sasun
C/o Adarsh Niketan High School, Badyal Brahamana, R.S.Pura
115. Tariq Ahmad Pala
S/o Gh. Hassan Pala
R/o PO Nowpora, Devsar. District Kulgam
116. Sameer Ahmad Malik
S/o Bashir Ahmad Malik
R/o Bonapora Sholipora, Tehsil and District Budgam
117. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Babu Ram
R/o Village Keya, PO Keya, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Udhampur
118. Madhu Bala
D/o Sh. Mool Raj
R/o Near Gole Mela Mandir,
Opposite Gigree Toffy Factory, Industrial Estate, Dhar Road,
Udhampur
119. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Des Raj
R/o H.No. 139, Lane No. 4, Vikas Colony, Paloura Top, Jammu
120. Sunil Dutt
S/o Sh. Jyoti Ram
R/o VPO Nordi Bala, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu
121. Sarita Devi
D/o Sh. Girdhari Lal
R/o Opposite PHE Office,
P.S. Mobile Shopee,
Bari Brahamana, Samba
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 17 :: TA 6055/2021
122. Zaffer Ahmad Wanit
S/o Ab. Razak Wani
R/o Agroo, Tehsil Devsar,
PO Kilam, District Kulgam
123. Arshed Manzoor Shah
S/o Manzoor Ahmad Shah
R/o Renan Zaziabad,
Tehsil Handwara, District Kupwara
124. Raiees Ahmad Naik
S/o Gul Mohd. Naik,
R/o Village Pahaloo, Harpora, Tehsil Kulgam, District Kulgam
125. Waseem Raja Malik
S/o Mohd. Rafiq Malik
R/o PO Darhal Chowkian, Tehsil Dharhal, District Rajouri
126. Bilal Mudasir
S/o Habib Ullah
R/o Panchal Than Chittergul, Shangus, Anantnag
127. Irshad Ahmad Dar
S/o Bazir Ahmad Dar
R/o Kralhar Kanispora, Tehsil and District Baramulla
128. Kishore Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Tireth Raj Sharma
R/o Kishore Jodhpur, Tehsil and District Doda
129. Vandana Kotwal
D/o Sh. Ravinder Singh,
R/o H. No. 30, Indra Colony, Camp Road, Talab Tillo, Jammu
130. Abdul Hameed Hajam
S/o Ghulam Mohd. Hajam
R/o Singhpora Kalan, Baramulla
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 18 :: TA 6055/2021
31. Mohd. Latief Dar
S/o Ab. Gaffar Dar R/o Shalipora, Budgam
132. Javaid Ahmad Lone
S/o Ghulam Hassan Lone
R/o Mahayan Ferozpora, Tangmarg, Ferozpora, District Baramulla
133. Rahul Dev Manhas
S/o Sh. Rattan Lal Manhas, R/o H.No. 228, Lane No. 4, Sector-2,
Dogra Nagar, Muthi, Jammu
134. Mudhasir Ahmad Dar
S/o Gh. Mohi un Dir Dar
R/o Kachloo Qazipora, Kralgun Langate, Handwara
135. Showkat Ahmad Lone
S/o Shamim Ahmad Lone
R/o Reban Gundbehram, Tehsil and District Shopian
136. Shakeela Bani
D/o Gh. Ahmad Rather
R/o Urpash Nunner, Ganderbal
PO Nunner, District Ganderbal
137. Ashaq Hussain Lone
S/o Gh. Nabi Lone
R/o Nagam (Noorabad), Tehsil D.H. Pora, District Kulgam
138. Ashwani Kotwal
S/o Sh. Daya Krishan Kotwal,
R/o Ward No. 11, Raghunathpura, Udhampur.
139. Younis Ahmad Dar
S/o Ab. Majeed Dar
R/o Rangar, Tehsil Chadoora, District Budgam.
140. Javid Ali Dar
S/o Ali Mohd. Dar
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 19 :: TA 6055/2021
R/o Sholipora, District Budgam
141. Ishfaq Ahmad Teli
S/o Gul Mohd. Teli
R/o Shirpora, PO Frisal, Tehsil and District Kulgam
142. Mudasir Ahmad Malik
S/o Ab. Rashid Malik
R/o Panzan, Chadoora, Budgam
143. Mudasir Ahmad Dar
S/o Ab. Gaffar Dar
R/o Killora, Shopian Tehsil and District Shopian
144. Abid Bashir Rather
S/o Bashir Ahmad Rather
R/o Kewa,
Tehsil Dooru, District Anantnag
145. Shahid Yousuf Wani
S/o Mohd. Yousuf Wani
R/o Watigam, PO K.B. Pora, Tehsil D.H. Pora, District Kulgam.
146. Showkat Iqbal Khan
S/o Mohd. Shafi Khan
R/o PO Dolipora,
Tehsil Handwara, District Kupwara.
147. Amit Sharma
S/o Sh. Bharat Bhushan
R/o Nagri, Near Shiv Mandir, Doda City, Tehsil & District Doda.
148. Ashaq Hussain Shan S/o Ghulam Mohd. Shan
R/o Nowpora, Devsar, District Kulgam
149. John Mohd. Dar
S/o Ab. Majeed Dar
R/o Rangar. Tehsil Chadoora District Budgam
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 20 :: TA 6055/2021
150. Shahid ul Islam Khan
S/o Habib Ullah Khan
R/o Killora,
Near AL Huda Institute, Killora, PO Pinjura, Shopian
151. Gulzar Ahmad Lone
S/o Abdul Karim Lone
R/o Ferozpora, Tangmarg. District Baramulla
152. Rameez Ahmad Shah
S/o Gh. Mohi-ud-Din Shah
R/o Damhal Anantnag, Tehsil Kokernag, District Badsgam
153. Ravi Kumar
S/o Sh. Charanjeet Majotra
R/o H.No. 35/B, Idd Gah Road, Gandu Di Chawni,
Near Picnic Hotel, Jammu
154. Nirmal Singh
S/o Sh. Lal Chand
R/o Opposite Funlan Public School, Shanti Nagar, Kunjwani Talab,
Gangyal, Jammu
155. Upasna Devi
D/o Hem Raj
R/o Sindra, PO Sindra,
Tehsil Bhaderwah, District Doda;
156. Neelam Devi
D/o Mori Ram
R/o Village Chakpora, PO Jourian, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu
157. Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Sh. Sat Paul
R/o Flat No. 309, Block-U/3, Gandhi Nagar, Police Lines, Jammu
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 21 :: TA 6055/2021
158. Ajay Kumar Billa
S/o Sh. Madan Lal Billa
R/o Garan Jagir, PO Dadoa, Block Pouni, Tehsil and District Reasi
159. Vidya Devi
D/o Sh. Tirth Lal
R/o Bhella, VPO Bhella, Tehsil Thathri, District Doda
160. Naresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Parkash Chand,
R/o Pantal, PO Jandi,
Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua
161. Bholh Devi
D/o Sh. Dewan Chand
R/o Village and PO Khera Lair, Tehsil and District Reasi
162. Neha
D/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar
R/o Jawahar Nagar, Near Triloki Nath Temple, Railway Road
Udhampur
163. Vickey Kumar
S/o Sh. Satish Kumar
R/o H.No. 273, Sector No. 02, Shivalik Puram, Janipur Colony,
Jammu
164. Sangeeta Kumari
D/o Sh. Ishwar Chand Bhagat
R/o Bhella, Tehsil Thathri, District Doda
165. Pinka Devi
D/o Sh. Mani Ram
R/o Panthal Jandi,
Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua.
166. Arun Kumar
S/o Sh. Suram Chand
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 22 :: TA 6055/2021
R/o not disclosed in select list
167. Sandeep Khadotra
S/o Sh. Sham Lal Khadotra
R/o Kunjwani Talab Jammu, PO Gangyal, Tehsil and District Jammu
168. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Prithivi Raj
C/o Chief Agriculture Office Doda, Tehsil and District Doda
169. Mohd. Amin Bhat
S/o Gh. Mohd. Bhat
R/o Dawar Gurez, Bandipora
170. Kunzes Dolma
S/o Rigzen Dorjai
C/o Wangchok, CPO D.C. Office, Near Polo Ground, Leh, Ladakh
171. Stanzin Dolkar
S/o Sh. Sonam Mutup
C/o Som Nath Sharma Mukhyala,
PO Vomal, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu
172. Dechan Choral
S/o Tsering Angchok
C/o Pawan Indu Raina,
9A/Small Plot, Extension Gandhi Nagar, Jammu
173. Baqir Ali
S/o Kalbri Ali
R/o Lamsoo, Block Chiktan,
District Kargil
174. Fayaz Ali
S/o Mohd. Abass
C/o Sh. Balpinder Singh,
H.NO. 232, PO Lane Puran Nagar, New Plot,
Jammu.
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 23 :: TA 6055/2021
175. Vimal Kishore
Sh. Chader Parkash
R/o Village Dhamunda,
BPO Bhaderwah, District Doda
176. Manish Charak
S/o Sh. Puran Singh
R/o Ward No. 3/63, PO Bishnah,
Jammu.
177. Tsering Spalzom
S/o Sh. Rigzin Targas
R/o Jawahar Institute of Mountaneering and Winter Sports, Nunwan,
Pahalgam.
178. Mohd. Ikhlaq
S/o Sh. Mohd. Bashir
R/o Sakwah, PO Salwah, Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch
179. Mohd. Abass
S/o Gh. Mohd.
R/o Pishu, Kargil
180. Bipen Kumar
S/o Sh. Man Singh
R/o Buttla Sartingal, Bhaderwah,
District Doda.
181. Zaffar Iqbal
S/o Mir Mohd.
R/o Potha, Tehsil Surankote, District Poonch
182. Mohd. Alyas
S/o Abdul Majeed
R/o Kalaban, Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 24 :: TA 6055/2021
183. Syed Abass
S/o Syed Gh. Hussain
R/o Akchamal, District Kargil
184. Mohd. Hussain S/o Nissar Ali
R/o Tharumsa Pashkum.
Kargil.
185. Aamir Ahmed
S/o Farooq Ahmed
R/o Rubi Communication, Near Jula, Bridge Rajouri
186. Mohd. Wasim
S/o Noor Mohd.
R/o Chajla, Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch
187. Mohd. Hassan
S/o Mohd. Abass
R/o M.H. Electronic, Baroo,
Kargil.
188. Mahboob Ahmed
S/o Mohd. Sadeeq
R/o Bhera Kund,
PO Jugggal, Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch
189. Surinder Sharma
S/o Sh. Kheru Ram
R/o Sailanwali, PO Pallanwala, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu
190. Heena Baghal
D/o Ahmed Hussain Khan
R/o Qtr 9/B, Block H, Police Housing Colony,
Channi Himmat, Jammu
191. Amandeep Singh
S/o Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o Ward No. 04, Pallanwala, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 25 :: TA 6055/2021
192. Anil Manhas
S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh
R/o Village Pangali, PO Hamipyr, Sidher Tehsil Akhnoor, District
Jammu
193. Amjid Ahmed Khan
S/o Pervaize Ahmed Khan R/o Mankote, Tehsil Mendhar, District
Poonch
194. Mudasir Hassan Hajam
S/o Gh. Hassan Hajam
R/o Khrewan Chadder, PO Chadder, Tehsil and District Kulgam
195. Shair Ahmad Gulzar
S/o Gull Mohd. Hajam
R/o Khrewan Chaddr, Naidpora, Kulgam
196. Aijaz Ahmad Najar
S/o Mohd. Ashraf Najar
R/o Mohalla Chanakhan, Sopore, Baramulla
Respondents Nos. 4 to 196 through Respondent No. 1
Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Department of
Technical Education, Youth Services & Sports, J&K Government,
Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thapa, Ld. AAG, Mr. F A Natnoo)
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 26 :: TA 6055/2021
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The SWP No.1125/2016 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.6055/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) "Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the select list issued by the respondent No. 3 vide notification No. 01-PSC(DR-S) of 2016 dated 02.02.2016 whereby the respondents Nos. 4 to 196 have been selected against the posts of Lecturer Physical Education pursuant to advertisement notice No. 09-PSC(DR-P) of 2016 dated 20.03.2016;
b) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Government Order No. 45-Edu(Tech) of 2016 dated 24.02.2016 whereby the respondents Nos. 4 to 196 have been appointed as Lecturer Physical Education by the respondent No. 1;
c) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the advertisement notice No. 09-PSC(DR-P) of 2016 dated 20.03.2016 in so far as and to the extent the same stipulates the making of selection for against the posts of Lecturer Physical Education advertised thereby, by following Rule 51 of the J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 in complete ignorance of the mandate of Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012; HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 27 :: TA 6055/2021
d) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, commanding the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to re-issue the select list for the posts of Lecturer Physical Education advertised vide advertisement notice No. 09-PSC(DR-P) of 2016 dated 20.03.2014 on the basis of the overall merit obtained by the appearing candidates in the written test as well as in the interview by application of Rue 51 of the J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 as amended vide notification No. PSC/Exam/2016/48 dated 12.05.2016;
e) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing notifications No. PSC/Exam/2016/47 dated 12.05.2016 and No. PSC/Exam/2016/48 dated 12.05.2016 to the extent they rule out their applicability to the selection process initiated for the posts of Lecturer Physical Education vide advertisement notice No. 09-PSC(DR-P) of 2016 dated 20.03.2014;
f) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent."
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1125/2016, which was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu to this Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 6055/2021. The applicants have challenged the selection and appointment made to the posts of Lecturer HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 28 :: TA 6055/2021 Physical Education pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 09-PSC(DR-P) of 2014 dated 20.03.2014. The selection list was issued by the J&K Public Service Commission vide Notification No. 01-PSC(DR-S) of 2016 dated 02.02.2016, and the selected candidates were thereafter appointed vide Government Order No. 45-Edu(Tech) of 2016 dated 24.02.2016. The applicants seek quashing of the advertisement notification to the extent it prescribed selection in terms of Rule 51 of the J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980, the select list dated 02.02.2016, the consequential appointment order dated 24.02.2016, and also the notifications dated 12.05.2016 by which the amended selection criteria was made inapplicable to the already initiated selection process.
b) The case of the applicants is that they possess the requisite qualification of Master's Degree in Physical Education from recognized Universities and had applied for the posts of Lecturer Physical Education under their respective categories. The Public Service Commission had advertised 193 posts, with HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 29 :: TA 6055/2021 111 posts under Open Merit, 38 under RBA, 16 under SC, 19 under ST, 6 under ALC and 3 under SLC category. The essential qualification prescribed was Master's Degree in Physical Education from a recognized University, with NET/SLET/M.Phil./Ph.D. as desirable qualification. The applicants submit that they fulfilled the eligibility conditions and were entitled to be considered strictly in accordance with law and constitutional mandate of fairness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
c) The grievance of the applicants is that though the advertisement provided for selection under Rule 51 of the J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980, the said Rule gave excessive weightage to academic merit and viva voce. As per the criteria then existing, 40 marks were earmarked for viva voce, 45 marks for minimum prescribed qualification, 5 marks for higher qualification, 3 marks for experience, 2 marks for distinction in sports, 2 marks for NCC and 3 marks for special attributes. According to the applicants, such a selection criterion was arbitrary because it did not give HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 30 :: TA 6055/2021 due weightage to the written test performance and created scope for candidates with higher academic marks, obtained from different Universities having different marking patterns, to secure undue advantage over candidates who performed better in the written screening test.
d) The applicants further plead that Government Order No. 252- HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 had already directed that the system of shortlisting or selection by giving weightage to academic examination marks should be dispensed with and that recruiting agencies, including the Public Service Commission, should hold a uniform written test and take into account the marks obtained in such written examination while making selections. According to them, the advertisement dated 20.03.2014 was issued almost two years after the said Government Order, yet the Commission ignored the same and continued with the earlier Rule 51 criteria. The applicants contend that once a written test was actually held on 29.11.2015, the marks obtained therein ought to have been HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 31 :: TA 6055/2021 counted for final merit and could not have been ignored at the stage of final selection.
e) It is further pleaded that the result of the written screening test was declared vide Notification No. PSC/Exam/2016/07 dated 19.01.2016 and thereafter the interview schedule was notified. The applicants claim that they had secured better marks in the written test than several candidates who were ultimately selected. According to them, after coming to know about Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012, they and other candidates approached the Commission requesting that written test marks be counted for final merit. However, instead of considering their grievance, the Commission allegedly hurried the process, revised the interview schedule, increased the number of candidates to be interviewed per day, completed the interviews by 01.02.2016 and issued the final select list on the very next day, i.e., 02.02.2016. The applicants also object to the constitution of multiple interview committees and allege that there was no uniformity in assessment, particularly as different committees interviewed different sets of candidates. HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 32 :: TA 6055/2021
f) The applicants have also challenged Rule 51 itself on the ground that 40% allocation to viva voce is excessive and contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matters concerning interview weightage. They submit that excessive viva voce marks can convert merit into demerit and vice versa. Their further case is that candidates from different Universities cannot be compared fairly on the basis of academic percentage alone, as some Universities follow strict marking, some follow CGPA, and some have more liberal marking patterns. According to the applicants, the only fair method was to prepare final merit by giving due weightage to the common written test, which was uniform for all candidates.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents, particularly the J&K Public Service Commission, have opposed the claim of the applicants. It is submitted that the applicants have challenged the selection only after participating in the process and after failing to make the grade. According to the respondents, the advertisement HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 33 :: TA 6055/2021 notification itself clearly stipulated that the selection would be governed by the J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980, particularly Rule 40 and Rule 51.
The applicants applied pursuant to the said notification, appeared in the written screening test and interview, and only after finding themselves unsuccessful, have sought to question the very criteria under which they participated. The respondents, therefore, submit that the applicants are estopped from challenging the selection criteria and the selection process at this belated stage.
b) Regarding Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012, the respondents state that the said Government Order was issued in the context of validity of degrees obtained through distance mode and contained certain recommendations regarding holding of written test and discouraging weightage to academic marks. However, those recommendations were required to be incorporated in the relevant recruitment rules/examination rules. The respondents further submit that the observations in Jameel Ahmed vs State & Ors., on which the HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 34 :: TA 6055/2021 applicants rely, were considered in LPA(SWP) No. 15/2012, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench, vide judgment dated 23.05.2013, held that the observations made by the learned Single Judge in para 12 of the judgment would not operate against the Public Service Commission. Therefore, according to the respondents, the applicants cannot rely on the said observations to invalidate the selection made by the Commission under its Business Rules.
c) The respondents further submit that SRO 438 of 2015 dated 11.12.2015 was the provision by which written test-based selection was incorporated in the Gazetted and Non-Gazetted Recruitment Rules, and thereafter the Commission recast its criteria under Rule 40 and Rule 51 and made the amended criteria applicable to selections initiated with effect from 01.01.2016. Since the present selection process had been initiated much earlier, i.e., through Advertisement Notification dated 20.03.2014, the amended criteria could not be applied retrospectively. Applying a new criteria after commencement of the selection process would amount to changing the rules of the HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 35 :: TA 6055/2021 game midway, which is impermissible. The respondents, therefore, submit that the selection was rightly carried out as per the criteria existing at the time of advertisement.
d) The respondents have also stated that the Public Service Commission is a constitutional body entrusted with the responsibility of making selections to Gazetted services. In the absence of any selection criteria prescribed in the recruitment rules by the Government, the Commission is competent to conduct selections in accordance with its own Business and Procedure Rules. In the present case, the recruitment rules prescribed only the qualification and did not lay down any separate selection criteria. Therefore, the Commission applied Rule 51, which is a uniform criteria applicable to similarly situated candidates. The respondents submit that Rule 51 takes into consideration academic merit, higher qualification, experience, viva voce and other relevant attributes, and selections made under the said rule have been upheld in several cases.
HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 36 :: TA 6055/2021
e) On facts, the respondents submit that 193 posts of Lecturer Physical Education were referred to the Commission by the Technical Education/Youth Services and Sports Department vide letter dated 06.01.2014. The posts were advertised on 20.03.2014 and 1319 applications were received. Out of them, 1220 candidates appeared in the written screening test held on 29.11.2015. Since the number of candidates was large, the Commission decided to hold a screening test for shortlisting candidates for interview in terms of Rule 40. On the basis of the screening test, candidates were shortlisted category-wise for interview, and the applicants were also permitted to participate in the interview. The respondents clarify that the written test was only for shortlisting and not for determination of final merit.
f) The respondents further submit that the interviews were conducted from 27.01.2016 to 31.01.2016. Final merit was prepared on the basis of overall performance in interview, academic merit and other parameters prescribed under Rule 51. The applicants could not secure merit higher than the last HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 37 :: TA 6055/2021 selected candidate in their respective categories and, therefore, were not recommended for appointment. The respondents deny that the applicants were excluded arbitrarily and maintain that the selected candidates were found more meritorious and suitable as per the notified criteria.
g) With respect to the allegation regarding multiple interview boards, the respondents submit that, considering the large number of candidates, interview boards were constituted on daily basis comprising Members of the Commission and subject experts. The Members and experts were rotated in a systematic manner to ensure transparency and fairness. The respondents deny that there was any illegality, bias, arbitrariness or lack of uniformity in the interview process. It is their stand that the selection was conducted fairly, transparently and in accordance with the notified rules, and that the applicants have raised flimsy and unsustainable grounds only because they failed to secure selection.
HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 38 :: TA 6055/2021
h) The respondents, therefore, pray that the Transfer Application, being misconceived, untenable and devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1125/2016, which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu to this Tribunal and came to be registered as T.A. No. 6055/2021. The applicants have questioned the selection and appointment made to the posts of Lecturer Physical Education pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 09-PSC(DR-P) of 2014 dated 20.03.2014, whereby 193 posts were advertised by the J&K Public Service Commission.
7. The applicants seek quashing of the select list issued by the Public Service Commission vide Notification No. 01-PSC(DR-S) of 2016 dated 02.02.2016, whereby private respondents came to be selected against the posts of Lecturer Physical Education. They have also challenged Government Order No. 45-Edu(Tech) of 2016 dated 24.02.2016, whereby the selected candidates were appointed. The HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 39 :: TA 6055/2021 applicants have further prayed that the selection should have been made by giving due weightage to the marks obtained in the written test and not merely in terms of Rule 51 of the J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980.
8. The case of the applicants is that they are duly qualified, possessing Master's Degree in Physical Education from recognized Universities, and had applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement notification under their respective categories. It is pleaded that the advertisement prescribed Master's Degree in Physical Education as the essential qualification and NET/SLET/M.Phil./Ph.D. as desirable qualification. It is further pleaded that all the applicants fulfilled the eligibility conditions and were, therefore, entitled to fair consideration in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
9. The main grievance projected by the applicants is that though a written screening test was held by the Commission on 29.11.2015, the marks obtained in the said written test were not counted for preparation of final merit. According to the applicants, many of them secured higher marks in the written test than several candidates who were ultimately selected. It is their case that the written test was a HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 40 :: TA 6055/2021 uniform and objective method of assessing merit, and therefore, the marks obtained therein ought to have been made part of the final selection process.
10. The applicants have relied upon Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 to contend that the system of making selection by giving weightage to academic marks had been dispensed with and a uniform written test was required to be held for making selections. According to them, the said Government Order was binding upon the recruiting agencies, including the Public Service Commission, and the Commission was not justified in ignoring the same while conducting the present selection.
11. It is further the case of the applicants that Rule 51 of the J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980, as applied to the selection in question, was arbitrary and unfair. Under the said Rule, 40 marks were allotted to viva voce, 45 marks to academic merit, 5 marks to higher qualification, 3 marks to experience, 2 marks to sports distinction, 2 marks to NCC and 3 marks to special attributes. The applicants submit that allocation of 40 HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 41 :: TA 6055/2021 marks to viva voce gave excessive discretion to the interview board and had the effect of converting merit into demerit.
12. The applicants have also contended that giving high weightage to academic marks is itself arbitrary, as different Universities follow different systems of marking. Some Universities award marks liberally, some follow CGPA system, and some follow direct percentage system. Therefore, according to the applicants, the academic marks of candidates from different Universities cannot be treated as a uniform basis for determining comparative merit. Their contention is that only the written test could have provided a level playing field.
13. It is also alleged by the applicants that the Commission acted hurriedly in completing the interview process. It is pleaded that after declaration of the written test result, the applicants and other candidates approached the Commission requesting that the written test marks be counted for final merit, but instead of considering the said grievance, the Commission revised the interview schedule and completed the interviews expeditiously. The final select list was then issued on 02.02.2016, immediately after completion of interviews. HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 42 :: TA 6055/2021
14. The applicants have further challenged the interview process on the ground that different interview committees were constituted and there was no uniformity in assessment. It is alleged that the Chairman of the Commission did not participate in all interview committees and different committees assessed different sets of candidates. According to the applicants, this rendered the entire selection process arbitrary and violative of the mandate of fairness.
15. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicants. The stand of the official respondents is that the selection was conducted strictly in accordance with the advertisement notification and the Rules governing the field at the relevant time. It is submitted that the advertisement dated 20.03.2014 clearly mentioned that selection would be made in accordance with the J&K Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980. The applicants, having participated in the process with full knowledge of the criteria, cannot be permitted to challenge the same after they failed to secure selection.
16. The respondents have submitted that the written test held on 29.11.2015 was only a screening test for shortlisting candidates for HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 43 :: TA 6055/2021 interview. It was never notified as a test for determination of final merit. Therefore, the applicants cannot claim, as a matter of right, that marks obtained in the screening test should be counted for final merit. Once the advertisement and applicable Rules provided a particular method of selection, the Commission was bound to proceed accordingly.
17. As regards Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012, the respondents have stated that the same could not automatically override the Business and Procedure Rules of the Public Service Commission unless appropriate amendments were incorporated in the relevant rules. It is further stated that the amended selection criteria was made applicable prospectively to selections initiated after 01.01.2016. Since the present selection process had commenced in the year 2014, the subsequent amendment could not be applied retrospectively to the present selection.
18. The respondents have also taken the plea that applying a new criteria after commencement of the selection process would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game had already begun. Such a course is impermissible. The advertisement was issued in HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 44 :: TA 6055/2021 2014, applications were invited under the then existing criteria, candidates participated on that basis, and the Commission completed the process in accordance with the rules then holding the field.
19. The respondents have denied the allegation of arbitrariness or bias in the interview process. It is stated that, considering the large number of candidates, different interview boards were constituted consisting of Members of the Commission and subject experts. The boards were constituted in a systematic manner and there was no discrimination against the applicants. The final merit was prepared in accordance with Rule 51, and the applicants could not secure merit higher than the last selected candidates in their respective categories.
20. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the selection made to the posts of Lecturer Physical Education pursuant to Advertisement Notification dated 20.03.2014 can be interfered with on the ground that the written screening test marks were not counted for final merit.
21. The answer, in our considered view, has to be in the negative. The advertisement notification clearly indicated the applicable criteria. The written test was conducted for shortlisting candidates for HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 45 :: TA 6055/2021 interview. It was not notified as a written examination for preparation of final merit. Therefore, candidates who appeared in the written screening test cannot claim that the said test must necessarily form part of final merit. The purpose of a screening test is limited. It is intended to reduce the number of candidates to a manageable level for interview. Unless the advertisement or the applicable Rules specifically provide that screening test marks shall be counted for final selection, such marks cannot be read into the final merit criteria by judicial interpretation.
22. It is settled law that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of the notified criteria cannot, after being unsuccessful, turn around and challenge the same process. The applicants applied under the advertisement dated 20.03.2014, appeared in the written screening test, participated in the interview and only thereafter challenged the selection. Such a challenge is clearly hit by the principle of acquiescence and estoppel.
23. In Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that candidates who take a chance by participating in the interview cannot thereafter challenge the process HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 46 :: TA 6055/2021 merely because the result is not favourable to them. The same principle has been reiterated in Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171, wherein it was held that unsuccessful candidates, having participated in the selection process without objection, are estopped from challenging the criteria after declaration of result.
24. Similarly, in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that candidates cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Once they participate in the process, they cannot challenge it after finding that they have not been selected. The applicants herein stand on the same footing. They consciously participated in the process and challenged the criteria only after the select list went against them.
25. The reliance placed by the applicants upon Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012 also does not advance their case. The said Government Order, at best, contained a policy direction requiring incorporation of certain recommendations in the relevant recruitment/examination rules. Unless the relevant Rules governing the selection were amended, the Commission was required to proceed HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 47 :: TA 6055/2021 in terms of the Rules existing at the time of advertisement. An executive instruction cannot, by itself, override the notified selection rules or criteria governing an ongoing recruitment process.
26. It is also not disputed that the amendment to the Public Service Commission's criteria was made applicable prospectively to selections initiated from 01.01.2016. The present selection had been initiated on 20.03.2014. Once the process had commenced under a particular set of rules, the applicants cannot insist that a subsequently modified or amended criteria should be applied retrospectively to their case.
27. The law is equally well settled that the rules of selection cannot be changed midway. If the applicants' contention is accepted, it would mean that after candidates had applied under one criteria and participated in the process, a new criteria would be imposed on the selection. This would itself be unfair to all candidates who participated in the selection on the basis of the original advertisement. Therefore, the Commission was justified in completing the process under the criteria notified at the inception of the recruitment. HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 48 :: TA 6055/2021
28. The contention of the applicants that academic marks should not have been given weightage also cannot be accepted. The criteria under Rule 51 was uniformly applied to all candidates. Merely because candidates came from different Universities or different evaluation systems cannot be a ground to strike down the entire selection. In the absence of any specific proof of manipulation, mala fides, fraud or violation of statutory rules, the Tribunal cannot substitute its own selection criteria for that prescribed by the competent authority.
29. The applicants have also challenged allocation of 40 marks to viva voce. It is true that Courts have, in several cases, cautioned against excessive viva voce marks. However, the present selection was not based solely on viva voce. It included academic merit, higher qualification, experience and other factors as well. Moreover, the criteria was part of the existing Business and Procedure Rules of the Commission and was known to all candidates. No challenge was raised before participation in the selection process. Therefore, this ground also cannot be permitted to be urged after the applicants failed to make the grade.
HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 49 :: TA 6055/2021
30. The judgment in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417, relied upon by the applicants, does not automatically render every selection with higher interview marks invalid. The validity of interview weightage depends upon the nature of post, applicable rules and facts of each case. In the present matter, there is no material to show that the interview marks were awarded mala fide or with the intention of favouring any particular candidate. A general allegation that viva voce marks were excessive is not sufficient to nullify the entire selection and disturb appointments made long ago.
31. As regards the allegation that multiple interview boards were constituted, this by itself cannot vitiate the selection. Where large number of candidates are to be interviewed, constitution of more than one board is an administrative necessity. Unless it is shown that different boards followed different criteria or that any particular candidate was favoured or prejudiced, the mere fact that different boards conducted interviews cannot be a ground for setting aside the selection.
32. The applicants have not placed any convincing material to establish mala fides, arbitrariness or deliberate manipulation. The pleadings are HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 50 :: TA 6055/2021 largely based on apprehension and comparative dissatisfaction with the final result. A selection made by a constitutional body like the Public Service Commission cannot be lightly interfered with on the basis of such generalized allegations.
33. It is also important to note that the selected candidates were appointed in the year 2016 and have been serving for a considerable length of time. The present matter has remained pending for years. To unsettle the entire selection and appointments at this stage, in the absence of any glaring illegality, would cause serious prejudice and administrative disruption. Courts and Tribunals have consistently held that completed selections and long-standing appointments should not be disturbed unless a clear case of illegality, fraud or violation of mandatory rules is made out.
34. The applicants have not been able to show that the selected candidates were ineligible. They have not shown that the Commission violated the advertisement notification. They have not shown that Rule 51 was applied selectively or discriminatorily. Their only grievance is that had the written test marks been counted, they may have had a better chance. Such a plea cannot form the basis for quashing a selection HARSHITDigitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 51 :: TA 6055/2021 which was conducted in accordance with the criteria notified at the commencement of the process.
35. The Tribunal cannot re-write the advertisement or direct preparation of a fresh select list on a criteria which was not part of the notified selection process. Judicial review in selection matters is confined to examining whether the process was illegal, arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to rules. It is not the function of the Tribunal to sit as an appellate authority over the assessment made by the Public Service Commission.
36. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the applicants have failed to make out any case for interference. The selection list dated 02.02.2016 and appointment order dated 24.02.2016 do not suffer from any such illegality which would warrant quashing by this Tribunal.
37. The Transfer Application is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. No order as to costs.
38. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHITDigitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV