Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Reeta Rani vs Service Selection Board on 31 December, 2025
:: 1 :: TA 52/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 52/2023
Reserved on: - 02.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 31.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Reeta Rani (Age 36 years) W/o Sh.Sandeep Singh Jamwal, R/o 157/A,
Sainik Colony, Jammu.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. J.P. Gandhi)
Versus
1. J&K Services Selection Board through its Chairman J&K Services
Selection Board, Sehkari Bhawan, Near Bahu Plaza, Jammu 180012.
2. Secretary, J&K Services Selection Board, Sehkari Bhawan, Near
Bahu Plaza, Jammu 180012.
...Respondents
(Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 52/2023
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.2339/2012 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.52/2023 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that keeping in view the above-made submissions and those to be argued at the time of hearing, a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing the illegal action of the respondents by virtue of which the name of the petitioner has not been shown in the final select list and a writ of mandamus may also very kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the M.Phil. qualification of the petitioner acquired from the Global Open University, Nagaland while issuing the final selection list and a further direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to select and show the name of the petitioner in the final select list as a General Line Teacher in District Cadre Jammu and also a direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to recommend the name of the petitioner for making appointment of the petitioner as General Line Teacher in District Cadre Jammu.
b) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in her pleadings are as follows: -
HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 3 :: TA 52/2023
a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 2339/2012, which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu to this Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 52/2023. The petitioner/applicant had approached the writ court aggrieved of her non-inclusion in the final select list for the post of General Line Teacher (District Cadre Jammu) pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 07 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010, issued by the J&K Services Selection Board.
b) The applicant claims to be a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir and a citizen of India, asserting entitlement to all constitutional, legal, and statutory rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that she possesses a consistently strong academic background, having passed Matriculation (1991) and 10+2 (1993) from the J&K State Board of School Education. Thereafter, she completed Graduation (Science), Post-Graduation (English), B.Ed., and M.Ed. from the University of Jammu. In addition, the applicant claims to have acquired an M.Phil. degree from HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 4 :: TA 52/2023 Global Open University, Nagaland, copies whereof were appended with the writ petition.
c) It is further pleaded that the applicant holds a valid Permanent Resident Certificate issued by the competent authority, evidencing her domicile status. On issuance of Advertisement Notification No. 07 of 2010, whereby 608 posts of General Line Teachers for District Cadre Jammu were advertised, the applicant applied under the Open Merit category, claiming full eligibility under the notified selection criteria.
d) According to the applicant, she submitted all requisite documents along with her application form, including details of her academic qualifications. After scrutiny, she was found provisionally eligible and was called for interview, which she duly attended. The applicant asserts that she performed satisfactorily in the interview and legitimately expected selection.
e) Upon completion of the selection process, the respondents issued a Provisional Select List for District Cadre Jammu, which was published in the public domain. In the said HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 5 :: TA 52/2023 provisional list, the applicant's name appeared at Serial No. 226 under Open Merit, and notably, her M.Phil. qualification from Global Open University was taken into account while calculating her merit.
f) However, the grievance of the applicant arises from the subsequent issuance of the Final Select List, wherein her name did not figure among the selected candidates and was instead placed in the waiting list under the Open Merit category. It is specifically alleged that, at this stage, the respondents excluded the marks awarded for her M.Phil. qualification, thereby reducing her aggregate merit.
g) The applicant contends that the M.Phil. degree obtained by her from Global Open University, Nagaland, is genuine and from a recognized institution. She further alleges discriminatory treatment on the ground that candidates belonging to other districts, notably District Doda, who possessed M.Phil. degrees from the same university, were granted weightage and selected, whereas she was denied similar consideration. HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 6 :: TA 52/2023
h) On the strength of the above assertions, the applicant pleads violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, alleging arbitrariness, discrimination, and adoption of different standards by the recruiting agency. She accordingly seeks quashing of the final select list to the extent it excludes her, and a mandamus directing consideration of her M.Phil. qualification and consequential appointment as General Line Teacher.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents, while opposing the Transfer Application, have raised preliminary objections and have categorically denied any illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of constitutional rights. It is asserted that the claim of the applicant revolves entirely around the validity and recognition of an M.Phil. degree obtained through distance mode from Global Open University, Nagaland, which, according to the respondents, was not admissible under the governing rules and conditions of the advertisement.
HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 7 :: TA 52/2023
b) It is submitted that Advertisement Notification No. 07 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010 expressly incorporated the Government policy regarding recognition of degrees obtained through distance mode/study centres. The advertisement clearly stipulated that such degrees--except those obtained from IGNOU and DOEACC/MANU--would not be entertained unless duly recognized by the University of Jammu, University of Kashmir, or the State Board of Technical Education, J&K, in terms of Higher Education Department O.M. No. HE/Legal/2010 dated 30.03.2010.
c) The respondents assert that the applicant's M.Phil. degree from Global Open University, Nagaland, having been obtained through distance mode, did not fulfill the prescribed eligibility conditions and lacked the requisite recognition as mandated under the advertisement and the standing Government orders. It is emphasized that the said Government order was in force, binding, and had neither been challenged nor set aside at the relevant time.
HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 8 :: TA 52/2023
d) It is further averred that although the applicant was provisionally shortlisted and interviewed, her candidature was subject to verification and scrutiny of documents. Upon final assessment, it was found that the M.Phil. qualification relied upon by her could not be legally entertained. Consequently, the marks earlier provisionally attributed to the said qualification were withdrawn, resulting in a reduction of her merit, which rendered her ineligible for inclusion in the final select list. She was, therefore, placed only in the waiting list strictly on the basis of her valid and recognized qualifications.
e) The respondents strongly deny the allegation of discrimination and submit that the selection process was conducted uniformly and strictly in accordance with the advertisement conditions, statutory rules, and Government instructions. It is stated that no candidate was granted benefit of an unrecognized distance mode degree in violation of the applicable policy, and any perceived comparison with candidates of other districts is misconceived and factually incorrect. HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 9 :: TA 52/2023
f) It is also alleged that the applicant, despite clear stipulation in the advertisement, attempted to rely upon a degree which was not admissible, and therefore, cannot claim any vested or enforceable right to appointment. The respondents assert that adherence to the notified criteria cannot be diluted on equitable considerations, and no estoppel can operate against statutory provisions or Government policy.
g) On these premises, the respondents pray for dismissal of the Transfer Application, contending that no legal, constitutional, or statutory right of the applicant has been infringed and that the selection process does not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application has arisen out of SWP No. 2339/2012 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu, which on transfer has been registered as T.A. No. 52/2023. The applicant assails the final select list issued pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 07 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010 for the HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 10 :: TA 52/2023 posts of General Line Teachers, District Cadre Jammu, and seeks a direction to the respondents to consider her M.Phil. qualification from Global Open University, Nagaland, restore the weightage/marks therefor, and consequently include her in the final select list with recommendation for appointment.
7. The applicant pleaded that she is a permanent resident of J&K and possesses Matriculation and 10+2 from J&K Board and Graduation, Post-Graduation (English), B.Ed., M.Ed. from the University of Jammu. She also claims to have acquired an M.Phil. degree from Global Open University, Nagaland.
8. It is her case that pursuant to the advertisement, she applied for the post, her form was scrutinized, she was called for interview, and in the provisional select list she was shown selected at S. No. 226 under Open Merit. The applicant asserts that at the provisional stage, her M.Phil. qualification was duly considered. However, in the final select list her name did not appear in the selected candidates; instead, she was placed in the waiting list because her M.Phil. marks/weightage were allegedly deleted at the final stage. HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 11 :: TA 52/2023
9. The applicant further contends that similarly placed candidates in other districts (as stated, District Doda) allegedly received weightage for M.Phil. from the same University, and therefore denial to her amounts to discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
10. The respondents resist the claim primarily on the ground that the advertisement itself contained a clear stipulation regarding degrees/diplomas obtained through distance mode/study centre mode. It is pleaded that such degrees (except from IGNOU and DOEACC/MANU) were not to be entertained unless recognized by the University of Kashmir/University of Jammu/State Board of Technical Education, J&K, as clarified by the Higher Education Department OM dated 30.03.2010.
11. According to the respondents, the applicant's M.Phil. being through distance mode from Global Open University, Nagaland, did not satisfy the eligibility condition as per the advertisement and Government standing order; therefore, though she may have been provisionally shortlisted/interviewed, upon final scrutiny the marks attributable to the said M.Phil. were deducted, with the result that she HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 12 :: TA 52/2023 did not make the grade for recommendation and could at best figure in the waiting list. The respondents assert that as a recruiting body they are bound to adhere to the Government instructions and the notified conditions and cannot act contrary to them.
12. On the basis of the pleadings and record, the following points arise for determination:
Whether the applicant can claim an enforceable right to appointment merely on the basis of her position in the provisional select list.
Whether the respondents acted illegally in excluding/deleting weightage of M.Phil. (distance mode) at the stage of final selection in terms of the advertisement conditions and Government instructions.
Whether the applicant has established discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 on the plea of alleged selections in another district?
13. The core controversy is narrow: the applicant's claim rests upon consideration of M.Phil. obtained through distance mode from Global HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 13 :: TA 52/2023 Open University, Nagaland, and the effect of such qualification on the final merit position.
14. At the outset, it is well settled that a provisional select list does not create an indefeasible or vested right to appointment. A provisional selection is always subject to verification/scrutiny of eligibility and documents and compliance with the governing rules/conditions. The recruiting agency is not only competent but duty-bound to correct errors noticed during final scrutiny so that the final select list strictly conforms to the notified norms. Therefore, even if the applicant's name appeared in the provisional list, such inclusion by itself cannot confer a legal right to insist that the same position must continue in the final list, if on scrutiny it is found that weightage/marks were granted contrary to the notified conditions.
15. The respondents have specifically pleaded--and the record reflects--
that the advertisement contained an express stipulation regarding the non-entertainment of distance mode/study centre degrees, except as permitted, and subject to recognition by the competent University/Board in J&K as per Higher Education Department OM dated 30.03.2010.
HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 14 :: TA 52/2023
16. This condition was part of the rules of the game for all candidates.
The applicant, having applied pursuant to the same advertisement, is deemed to have accepted those conditions.
17. The respondents' case is that the applicant's M.Phil. from Global Open University, Nagaland (distance mode) was not admissible/recognizable under the said stipulation and therefore the marks attributable thereto were deleted at the time of final assessment.
18. Importantly, the applicant has not placed before the Tribunal any material of unimpeachable character to demonstrate that, for the relevant recruitment and as per the advertisement condition, her M.Phil. (distance mode) stood recognized/accepted by the University of Jammu/University of Kashmir/State Board of Technical Education, J&K in the manner contemplated. Mere assertion that the degree is "genuine" or that the University is "recognized" is not equivalent to establishing compliance with the specific recognition requirement imposed by the advertisement and the Government clarification relied upon by the respondents.
19. Once the advertisement condition is clear and binding, the Tribunal cannot substitute it with an equitable yardstick merely because the HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 15 :: TA 52/2023 applicant may have been placed higher in the provisional list. The selection has to be finalized strictly as per the notified conditions. Any deviation would itself introduce arbitrariness and would prejudice other candidates who were assessed in accordance with the same stipulation.
20. Coming to the plea of discrimination on the basis of alleged selection in another district (District Doda), the applicant's pleadings are general in nature.
21. A claim of hostile discrimination requires clear foundational facts:
who were the candidates, what exact qualification they possessed, how and under what category/criteria they were given weightage, and whether their degrees met the same recognition requirement incorporated in the advertisement. In the absence of specific and cogent material, a broad assertion that some other candidates were given benefit cannot by itself invalidate the selection in the applicant's district. In any case, it is also a settled principle that Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality; if any irregular benefit was granted elsewhere, that cannot become a ground to compel repetition of the same in the present case. HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 16 :: TA 52/2023
22. The respondents have consistently maintained that they, as a recruiting body, are obliged to follow Government instructions "in vogue" and the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, and that the deletion of marks was the direct consequence of applying those binding conditions.
23. We find no perversity, mala fides, or arbitrariness demonstrated in the decision-making process so as to warrant judicial interference. The Tribunal's jurisdiction in such matters is to examine legality and procedural fairness; it cannot re-write eligibility conditions or direct consideration of a qualification which is expressly restricted by the recruitment notification.
24. For all the above reasons, we answer the points for determination as follows:
a) The applicant does not acquire an enforceable right to appointment merely from inclusion in the provisional select list.
b) The respondents were justified in final scrutiny and deletion of marks/weightage attributable to a qualification not admissible under the advertisement stipulation relating to distance mode degrees.
HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 17 :: TA 52/2023
c) The plea of discrimination is not substantiated by specific material and, in any case, cannot be a basis to compel grant of an inadmissible benefit.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Transfer Application is found devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member Judicial Member /harshit/ HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV