Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Rajeshwar Sharma vs Home Department on 27 April, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 9119/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 9119/2020
Reserved on: - 19.12.2025
Pronounced on: - 27.04.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Rajeshwar Sharma Age 25 years S/o Bishamber Dass Sharma R/o
Village Majuja Tehsil Bishnah District Jammu.
...Petitioner
(Advocate: - Mr. Ashok Sharma)
Versus
1. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY TO
GOVT., HOME DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT,
SRINAGAR/JAMMU
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, J&K SRINAGAR/JAMMU.
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (ARMED) J&K
JAMMU(CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL RECRUITMENT BOARD)
4. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, JAMMU
KATHUA RANGE (CHAIRMAN RANGE LEVEL SELECTION
BOARD)JAMMU
5. COMMANDANT, JKAP 8TH BATTALION MEMBER, RANGE
LEVEL SELECTION BOARD C/O RESPONDENT NO.3.
6. COMMANDANT IRP 6TH BATTALION MEMBER, RANGE
LEVEL SELECTION BOARD C/O RESPONDENT NO.3
7. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DAR
JAMMUMEMBER, RANGE LEVEL SELECTION BOARD.
8. Vikram Singh S/O Shakti Singh R/O Kandoli Nagrota, Tehs il and
District Jammu.
9. Gopal Singh S/O Suram Singh R/O Pakhian Tehsil and District
Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 9119/2020
10.Lakhvinder Singh S/O Charan Singh R/O Makhan Pur Tehsil
Bishnah District Jammu.
11.Narinder Singh Jamwal S/O Jagdish Singh R/O Ward No. 3
Akhnoor tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu.
12.Parshotam Lal S/O Mirza Ram R/O Kangrail Camp Tehsil and
District Jammu.
13.Bawa Ram S/O Chuni Lal R/O Gandli tehsil R.S.Pura District
Jammu.
14.Hemant Sharma S/O Kewal Krishan R/O Mastgarh tehsil and
District Jammu.
15.Gurjit Singh S/O Harbans Singh R/O Gole Gugral Tehsil and
District Jammu.
16.Rohit Khajuria S/O Charanjeet Khajuria R/O Ghou Manhasan tehsil
and District Jammu.
17.Balbir Singh 8/0 Charan Jeet Singh R/O Gangyal tehsil and District
Jammu.
18.Sandeep Singh 8/0 Joginder Singh R/O Simbal camp tehail R.S.
Pura District Jammu.
19.Mohinder Lal Sharma S/O Ravi Kumar R/O Raipur Jagir tehsil and
Distrrict Jammu.
20.Gurmeet Singh 8/o Mohan Singh R/O Preet Nagar Tehsil and
District Jammu.
21.Hardeep Singh S/O Choor Singh R/O Kotheybarkat Tehsil R.S.
Pura District Jammu
22.Vikram Singh s/O Jagdish Singh R/O Hameer Pur Kona tehsil
Akhnoor District Jammu.
23.Neelam Singh S/O Ajeet Singh R/O Gandherwan tehsil Akhnoor
District Jammu.
24.Ganesh Kumar s/O Devidyal R/O Rathua Tehsil Jammu District
Jammu.
25.Jaswinder Singh S/O Tarvinder Singh R/O Camp Gole Gugral
Tehsil Jammu District Jammu.
26.Rasmeet Kour S/O Jasmin Singh R/O Phinder Tehsil R.S Pura
District Jammu.
27.Omkar Singh S/O Partap Singh R/O Laswara Tehsil Bishnah
District Jammu.
28.Vijay Kumar S/O Daya Ram R/O Chak-Bhaktawar Tehsil R.S. Pura
District Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 9119/2020
29.Anil Kumar S/O Balak Ram R/O Chakouri Tehsil R.S. Pura District
Jammu.
30.Sanjeev Choudhary s/O Pala Ram R/O Rangpur Tehsil R.S.Pura
District Jammu.
31.Kamaljeet Kumar S/O Sham Lal r/o Raipur tehsil R.S. Pura District
Jammu.
32.Naveen Kumar S/O Amar Nath R/O Rajwal tehsil Akhnoor
Distrrict Jammu.
33.Manu Sharma S/o Dev raj R/O Chak Murar Tesil Bishnah District
Jammu.
34.Sanjeev Kumar S/O Manga Ram R/O Khoipur tehsil Bishnah
District, Jammu.
35.Rajinder S/O Abhey Singh R/O Kantowali Tesil and District
Jammu.
36.Rakesh Kumar S/O Dalbir Sigh R/O Kungwani tehsil and District
Jammu.
37.Ravi Choudhary S/O Puran Chand R/O Bhadurpur tehsil Bishnah
District Jammu.
38.Vikas Kumar S/O Kaka Ram R/O Shahidi Chowk Teshil and
District Jammu.
39.Rakesh Singh S/O Singh R/O Ambmorha Tehsil Jammu District
Jammu.
40.Manik Kumar S/O Prabu Dyal R/O Upper Bam Tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
41.Krishan Singh S/O Rattan Singh R/O Pallanwala Tehsil Akhnoo
District Jammu.
42.Rukman Kumar S/O Ram Krishan R/O Bhimber Tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
43.Rakesh Kumar S/O Bachan Lal R/O Pakhian Tehsil Jammu District
Jammu.
44.Parveen Singh S/O Bharat Singh R/O Satrayan Tehsil R.S.Pura
District Jammu.
45.Roop Lal S/O Chaman lal R/O Powal Tehsil Bishnah District
Jammu.
46.Rakesh Kumar 8/0 Krishan Chand R/O Kheri tehsil Jammu District
47. Jammu. Shokat Ali S/O Noor Hussain R/O Dhanu tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: TA 9119/2020
48. Sandeep Kumar S/O Tarsem Lal R/O Kool Kalan Tehsil R. S. Pura
District Jammu.
49. Jagdish Sharma S/O Mohan Lal R/O Mishriwala Tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
50. Sandeep Singh S/O Suram Singh R/O Bera Tehsil R.S. Pura
District Jammu.
51. Narinder Pal Singh S/O Jaswant Singh R/O Khour Tehsil R.S.Pura
District Jammu.
52. Amrit Pal Singh S/O Kulwant Singh R/O Camp Gole Gugral
Tehsil Jammu.
53. Parveen Sharma S/O Puran Chand R/O Naryana Tehsil Akhnoor
District Jammu.
54. Rajeev Kumar S/O Raja Ram R/O Chakkirpal tehsil Akhnoor
District Jammu.
55. Ajeet Singh S/O Kamal Nain Singh R/O Sibmal tehsil R.S. Pura
District Jammu.
56. Sikander Lal S/O Mohan Lal R/O Bakori Tehsil Akhnoor District
Jammu.
57. Ashok Kumar S/O Bachan Lal R/O Sain Khurd tehsil R.S.Pura
District Jammu.
58. Bindu Devi D/O Deputy Nath R/O Jassore Tehsil R.S. Pura
District Jammu.
59. Satwant Singh S/O Gurbaksh Singh R/O Suzadpur Tehsil jammu
District Jammu.
60. Vijay Kumar S/O Bodh Raj R/O Sain kalan tehsil R.S.Pura District
Jammu.
61. Bhupinder Singh S/O Sher Singh R/O Nadori tehsil Jammu District
Jammu.
62. Junis Ali S/O Mohkan Din R/O Sunjwan Tehsil Jammu District
Jammu.
63. Naresh Kumar S/O Sohan Lal R/O Shezadpur Tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
64.Ramesh Lal S/O Shanker Dass R/O Kalah Tehsil Akhnoor District
Jammu.
65. Rakesh Kumar S/O Ajeet Kumar R/O Hakkal tehsil Jammu District
Jammu.
66. Sardar Ali S/O Rehmat Ali R/O Bain Bajalata tehsil Jammu Distrct
Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 :: TA 9119/2020
67. Harban Lal S/O Birta Ram R/O Tanda tehsil Akhnoor District
Jammu.
68. Balraj Singh S/O Parshotam Singh R/O Kote tehsil Jammu Distret
Jammu.
69. Pawan Sharma S/O Chattru Ram R/O Majua Uttami Tehsil
Bishnah District Jammu.
70.Anand Kishore S/O Bias Dev Sharma R/O Lower Gadigarh tehsil
Jammu.
71. Billo S/O Bashir Ahmed R/O Panjgaran Tehsil Jammu District
Jammu.
72. Jai Gopal S/O Rattan Lal R/O Goshan tehsil Akhnoor District
Jammu.
73. Parveen Kumar s/O Jagdish Raj R/O Shahpur Tehsil Bishnah
District Jammu.
74. Ashwani Kumar S/O Rattan Lal R/O Panjgarain tehsil Akhnoor
District Jammu.
75. Rahul Manhas s/o Ravinder Singh R/O Bantalab Tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
76. Ajay Kumar S/O Sham Lal R/O Boli Chak tehsil R.S.Pura District
Jammu.
77. Ramnik Singh S/O Surinder Singh R/O Gho Manhasan tehsil
Jammu District Jammu.
78. Sandeep Singh S/O Jamil Singh R/O Agwan Tehsil R. S Pura
District Jammu.
79. Angrez Sharma S/O Ronak Sharma R/O Choudharwalan tehsil
80. Akhnoor District Jammu. Raj Kumar S/O Joginder Lal R/O
Panjtoot Tehsil Akhnoor District Jammu.
81. Susheel Kumar S/O Darshan Lal R/O Ratnal Tehsil Bishnah
District Jammu.
82. Rakesh Kumar S/O Soudagar Mal R/O Kathar Tehsil Bishnah
District Jammu.
83. Raman Kumar S/O Mohider Ram R/O Mirpur Tehsil and District
84. Jammu. Sukhvinder Singh S/O Roshan Lal R/O Sain Kalyan tehsil
R.S. Pura District Jammu.
85. Lakshmi Dutt S/O Mulkh Raj R/O Raipur Jagir Tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 6 :: TA 9119/2020
86. Amita Kumari D/O Sham Lal R/O Hansa Tehsil R.S.Pura District
Jammu.
87. Rajinder Singh S/O lal Singh R/O Bandwal tehsil Akhnoor District
Jammu.
88. Pankaj Kumar S/O Thakur Dass R/O Gharibishna Tehsil Akhnoor
District Jammu.
89. Mintu Sharma S/O Makhan Lal R/O Jassore tehsil R.S.Pura
District Jammu.
90. Danesh Kumar S/O Jagdish Raj R/O Mallah tehsil Akhnoor
District Jammu.
91.Wasim Akram S/O Rashid Hussain R/O Chowadi Tehsil and
District Jammu.
92. Surinder Kumar S/O Barfu Ram R/O Hardumalara tehsil Akhnoor
District Jammu.
93. Raman Kumar S/O Bishan Dass R/O Rehal Dhamaliyan tehsil
Bishnah District Jammu.
94. Jorabar Singh S/O Jai Singh R/O Pallanwala tehsil Akhnoor
District Jammu.
95.Babu Ram S/O Balak Ram R/O Ghar Tehsil Akhnoor District
Jammu.
96.Shoba Choudhary D/O Bachan Lal R/O Subachak Tehsil Bishnah
District Jammu.
97. Narinder Kumar S/O Ranjit Sing R/O Kangraal Tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
98. Chander Hassan S/O Jagattar Lal R/O Nai Basti Naryanan tehsil
Akhnoor District Jammu.
99. Sanjay Sharma S/O Darshan Lal R/O Maira Tehsil Akhnoor
District Jammu.
100. Gulshan Lal S/O Saudghar Mal R/O badyal Brahmna Tehsil
R.S.Pura District Jammu.
101. Suresh Kumar S/O Sham Lal R/O Patta Bohri tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
102. Davinder Singh S/O Garib Singh R/O Pangali Colony Tehsil
Akhnoor District Jammu.
103. Kamal Kumar s/O Mulkh Raj R/O Chak Balla Tehsil R.S.Pura
District Jammu.
104. Sohan Lal S/O Ganesh Dass R/O Dhok Khalsa Tehsil Akhnoor
District
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 7 :: TA 9119/2020
105. Jammu. Rajeshwar Singh S/O Uttam Singh R/O Jagti Tehsil
jammu District
106. Jammu. Raj Kumar S/O Ramesh Chander R/O Kangrail Tehsil
jammu District Jammu.
107. Jorabar Singh S/O Ranjit Singh R/O Marjali tehsil Jammu District
Jammu.
108. Ravi Kumar S/O Ram Lal R/O Nikowal tehsil Akhnoor District
Jammu.
109. Arjan Dass S/O Bua Ditta R/O Budwal tehsil Akhnoor District
Jammu.
110. Ravinder Singh S/O Bant Singh R/O Camp Gole Gugral Tehsil
District Jammu.
111. Vijay Kumar S/O Roop lal R/O Mahavir Basti tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
112. Dilawar Singh S/O Punnu Singh R/O Khour Jattan Tehsil
Akhnoor District Jammu.
113. Anil Sharma S/O Sat paul R/O Karloop Tehsil and District
Jammu.
114.Kuldip Singh S/O Natha Singh R/O Chak Morhdyar tehsil R.S.
Pura District Jammu.
115.Balwinder Singh S/O Ghar Singh R/O Flora tehsil R.S.Pura
District Jammu.
116. Naresh Singh S/O Jagdev Singh R/O Kattal Batal Tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
117. Sukhbir Singh S/O Shamsher Singh R/O Chak Talab Tehsil
R.S.Pura District Jammu.
118. Jorabar Singh S/O Mohinder Singh R/O Bathera tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
119. Sunil Sharma S/O Puran Chand R/O Sohanjan tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
120. Vikrant Raina S/O Roshan lal Raina R/O Upper Gadigarh tehsil
Jammu District Jammu.
121. Pura District Jammu. Ravinder Choudhary S/O Tarlok Singh R/O
ChakBhapdin Tehsil R. S
122. Vinod Sharma S/O Krishan Dyal R/O Pangore tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
123. Ankush Sharma S/O Mohan lal R/O Khojipur Tehsil Bishnah
District Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 8 :: TA 9119/2020
124. Bachiter Singh S/O Dalbir Singh R/O Muthi Tehsil Akhnoor
District Jammu.
125. Vivek Singh Manhas S/O Ravi Singh Manhas R/O Paloura Tehsil
and District Jammu.
126. Sunil Kumar S/O Gopal Dass R/O Koh Pohta tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
127. Natish Kumar Sharma S/O Maohar Lal Sharma R/O Bash Nagar
tehsil JammuDistrict Jammu.
128. Preet Pal Singh S/O Man Singh R/O Kanachak Tehsil Jammu
District Jammu.
129. Roshan Singh S/O Shiv Dev Singh R/O Kotemaira teksil Akhnoor
District Jammu.
130. Satish Sharma S/O Prem Dass R/O Bhiri Taryal tehsil
AkhnoorDistrict Jammu.
131. Davinder Singh S/O Surjit Singh R/O Kothi Rathana tehsil R.S.
Pura District Jammu.
132. Jammu District Jammu. Jagmohan Singh S/O Pritam Singh R/O
Camp Gole Gugral tehsil
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, Ld. DAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 9 :: TA 9119/2020
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The SWP No.2173/2009 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.9119/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) "FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTORARI QUASHING THE SELECT LIST ISSUED BY RESPNDENT NO.3 VIDE ITS ORDER NO. 701 OF 2009 DATED 12-11-2009 TO THE EXTENT OF RESPONDENTS NO. 8 TO 142 FIGURING AT S.NO. 149 TO 274 FOR THE POST OF CONTABLE IN OPEN MERIT CATEGORY.
AND
b) QUASING THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE NO.
572 OF 2009 DATED 17.2.2009 BY VIRTUE OF WHICH HE HAS CONSTITUTED TWO PARALLEL SELECTION BOARDS.
AND
c) ALSO FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER FOR SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS CONSTABLE.
d) Any other writ, order, direction or command which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioner.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 9119/2020
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 2173/2009, which was originally instituted before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and, upon transfer, came to be registered as T.A. No. 9119/2020 before this Tribunal. The petitioner, Rajeshwar Sharma, calls in question the selection process undertaken for recruitment to the post of Constable pursuant to the advertisement notice issued in February, 2009 for raising IRP 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th Battalions. The principal relief sought is quashment of the select list issued vide Order No. 701 of 2009 dated 12.11.2009, to the extent private respondents shown selected in the Open Merit category are concerned, together with a challenge to Order No. 572 of 2009 dated 17.02.2009 whereby two parallel selection boards were constituted. The petitioner also seeks a direction for his consideration and appointment as Constable.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 9119/2020
b) The case of the petitioner, as set up in the pleadings, is that he is a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and was fully eligible to apply for the post of Constable. In response to the advertisement notice published on 08.02.2009, he submitted his application within time and was allotted Serial No. 903 under the Bishnah area. The petitioner asserts that he possessed the prescribed qualifications, having passed Matriculation in the year 2002 and 10+2 in 2007 from the J&K State Board of School Education. He further claims to have undergone typing training from a recognized vocational typing centre and to possess a diploma in computer information and accounting. According to him, these qualifications entitled him to due weightage in the selection process.
c) The petitioner further pleads that the respondents later issued a notice in the press dated 18.09.2009 indicating allotment of marks for recruitment to the post of Constable. According to him, the said notice was projected as a measure to ensure public awareness and transparency, but in substance it did not clearly specify whether the criteria applied to Constables, Followers, or HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 9119/2020 both. His grievance is that the entire exercise was vague, non- transparent, and lacking in certainty, thereby rendering the selection process arbitrary. He alleges that one authority issued the advertisement, another processed the selection, and yet another published the select list, which, according to him, reflected non-application of mind and an absence of a coherent and transparent procedure.
d) It is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that, even if the criteria published by the respondents were taken at face value, he was entitled to secure 26 marks in all, comprising marks for his 10+2 qualification, height, typing training and computer diploma. Despite this, his name did not figure in the impugned select list. On the other hand, according to him, several selected candidates shown as private respondents had allegedly secured only 24 or 25 marks and yet came to be selected. On this premise, the petitioner contends that meritorious candidates like him were ignored and less meritorious candidates were selected by arbitrary means.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 13 :: TA 9119/2020
e) The petitioner also assails the recruitment process on the
ground that the advertisement notice did not disclose the number of vacancies for the post of Constable, though the vacancies for various categories of Followers were specifically indicated. According to him, non-disclosure of the number of Constable vacancies created uncertainty and facilitated arbitrariness and pick-and-choose in the matter of selection. He submits that such concealment, coupled with public assertions of transparency, casts serious doubt on the fairness of the process.
f) A major plank of challenge raised by the petitioner concerns Order No. 572 of 2009 dated 17.02.2009, whereby the Director General of Police constituted two boards, namely a Central Recruitment Board and a Range Level Selection Board, for the same recruitment. The petitioner contends that the constitution of two parallel boards for one and the same selection was contrary to law, undermined the independence of the range- level body, and violated Rule 172 of the Police Rules, under which, according to him, selection boards were to be HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 9119/2020 constituted by the Government and not by the Director General of Police. It is further alleged that the arrangement enabled unwarranted interference by higher authorities in the functioning of the range-level board and thereby vitiated the fairness of the recruitment process.
g) The petitioner has additionally pleaded that due representation was not afforded to candidates from different tehsils of District Jammu, despite the respondents having issued instructions in that regard. He points out that the select list reflected an uneven distribution of selected candidates from various tehsils such as Bishnah, R.S. Pura, Akhnoor and Jammu, which, according to him, further demonstrates arbitrariness in the selection. He also attributes the impugned selection to favoritism, nepotism, pick- and-choose and even corruption, while asserting that no definite and lawful criteria was actually followed. On these assertions, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned select list to the extent challenged and prays for his own selection and appointment.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 9119/2020
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) On merits, the respondents admit that the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable in IRP 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th Battalions and had been allotted Serial No. 903/Bishnah under the General Category. They also do not dispute the advertisement notice or the existence of the recruitment process referred to by the petitioner.
b) In answer to the allegations regarding lack of transparency and the constitution of multiple boards, the respondents state that, in order to maintain transparency and also to ensure speedy completion of the recruitment process, a Central Recruitment Board was constituted under the chairmanship of the Inspector General of Police (Armed), along with other members, while at the range level the Deputy Inspector General of the respective range was made Chairman of the Selection Board with three members. According to the respondents, this arrangement was adopted for administrative convenience and expeditious finalization of recruitment. It is specifically pleaded that the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: TA 9119/2020 Chairman of the Central Recruitment Board was the final authority competent to issue the select list. The respondents thus deny that the constitution of the boards was illegal or that it caused any unfairness in the process.
c) The respondents specifically controvert the petitioner's assertion regarding his merit. Their stand is that the petitioner did not secure 26 marks as claimed by him, but in fact obtained only 22 marks in total. In contrast, according to the respondents, the selected candidates arrayed as private respondents had secured 25 marks each and were selected on merit. The issuance of Order No. 701 of 2009 dated 12.11.2009 by the Chairman, Central Recruitment Board, is relied upon to justify the select list. The respondents, therefore, maintain that the petitioner was not selected simply because he fell below the merit of the selected candidates.
d) As regards the petitioner's objection that the advertisement notice did not mention the number of vacancies for the post of Constable, the respondents deny that any illegality arose therefrom. They state that it was not incumbent upon the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: TA 9119/2020 authorities to mention the exact number of vacancies in the manner suggested by the petitioner. At the same time, they clarify that five battalions were ordered to be raised involving 4,810 vacancies of Constables and 345 vacancies of Followers.
Thus, according to the respondents, the challenge founded on non-disclosure of vacancies is misconceived.
e) The respondents accordingly pray that the petition be dismissed, as the selection was conducted in accordance with the procedure evolved by the department, the petitioner secured lesser merit than the selected candidates, and no illegality warranting interference is made out on the record.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 2173/2009, which was initially filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and, upon transfer, came to be registered before this Tribunal as T.A. No. 9119/2020. The applicant has questioned the selection process conducted for recruitment to the post of Constable in IRP 16 th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th Battalions pursuant to the advertisement notice HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: TA 9119/2020 issued in February, 2009, and has sought quashment of the select list issued vide Order No. 701 of 2009 dated 12.11.2009 to the extent private respondents came to be selected in the Open Merit category. The applicant has also challenged Order No. 572 of 2009 dated 17.02.2009, whereby two recruitment boards came to be constituted, and has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider and appoint him as Constable.
7. The case set up by the applicant is that he was fully eligible for the post in question and had applied pursuant to the advertisement notice published on 08.02.2009. He claims to have been allotted Serial No. 903 under Bishnah. According to him, he had passed Matriculation in the year 2002 and 10+2 in the year 2007 from the J&K State Board of School Education. He also claims to possess typing training from a recognized institute and a diploma in computer information and accounting. On the strength of these qualifications, the applicant pleads that he was entitled to secure higher marks than many of the selected candidates and ought to have been selected.
8. The grievance of the applicant is that though a notice came to be issued in September, 2009 indicating the mode of allotment of marks, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 :: TA 9119/2020 the same was vague and did not clearly indicate whether such criteria applied to Constables, Followers, or both. The further case of the applicant is that the process lacked transparency inasmuch as one authority issued the advertisement, another processed the selection, and yet another published the select list. According to him, this itself created doubt about the fairness and legality of the recruitment process.
9. The applicant has specifically pleaded that, as per the criteria allegedly adopted by the respondents, he ought to have secured 26 marks in all, including marks for 10+2 qualification, height, typing training and computer diploma. Despite that, his name did not figure in the select list, whereas many private respondents, according to him, were selected despite having secured only 24 or 25 marks. The applicant has thus alleged arbitrariness, pick-and-choose and favoritism in the matter of selection.
10. The applicant has also challenged the recruitment on the ground that the advertisement notice did not disclose the number of vacancies for the post of Constable, though vacancies for various categories of Followers were indicated. It is pleaded that non-disclosure of the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 :: TA 9119/2020 number of Constable vacancies facilitated arbitrariness and rendered the process unfair. The applicant has further called in question the constitution of two parallel recruitment boards by virtue of Order No. 572 of 2009 dated 17.02.2009. According to him, the constitution of a Central Recruitment Board and a Range Level Selection Board for the same recruitment was contrary to law, interfered with the independent functioning of the range-level board, and vitiated the selection process. It has also been pleaded that due representation was not afforded to all tehsils of District Jammu, which further demonstrates arbitrariness.
11. On merits, the respondents admit that the applicant had applied for the post of Constable in IRP 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th Battalions and had been allotted Serial No. 903/Bishnah under the General Category. The respondents have further pleaded that in order to maintain transparency and to ensure speedy completion of the recruitment process, a Central Recruitment Board was constituted, and at the range level the concerned DIGs were made Chairmen of the Selection Boards with three members each. According to the respondents, the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 21 :: TA 9119/2020 Chairman of the Central Recruitment Board was the final authority to issue the selection list, and no illegality attaches to such procedure.
12. The stand of the respondents is that the applicant did not secure 26 marks as claimed by him, but in fact secured only 22 marks in total. According to them, the selected candidates had secured 25 marks each and were selected on merit. It is thus pleaded that the applicant was rightly not selected. The respondents have also denied any illegality in not specifying the exact number of vacancies in the advertisement notice and have clarified that five battalions were ordered to be raised involving 4,810 vacancies of Constables and 345 vacancies of Followers. On these grounds, dismissal of the petition has been prayed for.
13. We have considered the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 27.11.2009, placed on record by the applicant, whereby while issuing notice the Court recorded the contention of the applicant that persons with lower merit had been selected and directed that one post of Constable in IRP 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th Battalions under Open Category shall not be filled up, subject to objections from the other side. That order assumes significance, for it shows that during HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 22 :: TA 9119/2020 the pendency of the proceedings the Court protected one post so that the claim of the applicant may not become wholly academic. The interim protection, therefore, cannot be ignored while moulding the final relief.
14. Having considered the matter, this Tribunal is of the view that the prayer of the applicant for quashing the entire selection process or even the select list qua a large number of selected candidates cannot be granted at this belated stage and on the basis of the material placed on record. The allegations regarding constitution of two boards, lack of transparency, non-disclosure of exact vacancies and uneven tehsil- wise representation, by themselves, do not furnish sufficient ground to annul the entire selection after long passage of time, particularly when a large number of selected candidates are involved and the recruitment was undertaken for raising several battalions. It is settled that courts are slow in interfering with completed selections, more so when such interference would unsettle appointments already made and affect a large body of appointees, unless a clear, specific and established illegality going to the root of the matter is shown.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 :: TA 9119/2020
15. At the same time, one important aspect stands out. The consistent case of the applicant is that he had secured more marks than some of the selected candidates and had wrongly been left out. The respondents, on the other hand, say that the applicant secured only 22 marks and therefore did not make the cut. Thus, the real dispute narrows down to the comparative merit and entitlement of the applicant. In ordinary circumstances, such dispute may not justify wholesale interference with the selection. However, in the present case, the Hon'ble High Court had already protected one post in Open Category during pendency of the matter. That interim protection preserved the right of consideration of the applicant. Therefore, even if the prayer for quashing the whole selection is not accepted, the matter does not deserve outright dismissal in a manner which would render the interim protection meaningless.
16. The Tribunal is, therefore, of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the present Transfer Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant against the post kept reserved under the interim order dated 27.11.2009. Such course would balance equities. It would not HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 24 :: TA 9119/2020 disturb the entire selection. It would also preserve the limited protection which the Hon'ble High Court had consciously granted in favour of the applicant at the initial stage. It would further ensure that if, upon proper scrutiny of record, the applicant was in fact entitled to selection on merit, he is not denied relief merely because of passage of time during pendency of litigation.
17. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not returned any final finding that the applicant must necessarily be appointed. That question has to be examined by the respondents on the basis of the original recruitment record, the merit position of the applicant, the marks actually secured by him, the marks of the last selected candidate in the relevant Open Merit segment, and all other applicable eligibility conditions. But equally, the respondents cannot now brush aside the applicant's claim without such objective consideration, especially when one post had remained protected by order of the Court.
18. Accordingly, the present T.A. is disposed of with the following directions:
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 25 :: TA 9119/2020
a) The respondents shall consider the case of the applicant for selection/appointment to the post of Constable against the post kept reserved pursuant to interim order dated 27.11.2009.
b) While doing so, the respondents shall verify from the original record:
the marks actually secured by the applicant, the merit of the last selected candidate in the relevant Open Merit category, the eligibility of the applicant as on the relevant date, and whether the applicant was entitled to selection against the said reserved post in accordance with the rules and criteria governing the recruitment.
c) If upon such consideration the applicant is found entitled, appropriate order of appointment shall be issued in his favour against the said post.
d) In case the applicant is found entitled and appointed, his entitlement to consequential benefits shall also be determined in accordance with law. However, having regard to the long lapse of time and the fact that the applicant did not actually serve, it is HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 26 :: TA 9119/2020 clarified that monetary benefits for the past period shall abide by the applicable principles governing such matters and shall not automatically follow as the principle of "No work no pay"
shall apply.
e) If the applicant is not found entitled, the respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with his claim and communicate the same to him.
f) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the respondents.
19. With the above directions, the T.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV