Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Bipen Singh vs Higher Education Department on 23 December, 2025
:: 1 :: TA 231/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 231/2022
Reserved on: - 07.08.2025
Pronounced on: - 23.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Bipen Singh, age 35 years, S/o Sh. Sansar Chand, R/o Boliyan Tehsil
Chiralla, District Doda.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Ashwani Thakur)
Versus
1. The State of Jammu and Kashmir through the Secretary Higher
Education, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu.
2. The District Colleges, Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu.
3. Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, through its
Secretary.
4. Syed Masarat Geelani, S/o Syed Mairaj UD Din Geelani, R/o Kunnel
Raingpath Handwara.
5. Hamidullah Ganie, S/o Mohd. Akbar Ganie, R/o Chaki Kara Pora
Cherari Sharief Budgam.
6. Khursheed Ahmed, S/o Habib Ullah Rather, R/o Narapora Shopian.
7. Hilal Ahmed, S/o Gh. Hassan Shah, R/o Nigeen Pora Kund Qazigund
Kulgam
8. Vijay Kumar, S/o Parkash Ram, R/o Rainda P.O Tehsil and District
Bhaderwah.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 231/2022
9. Yasmeena Yousuf, S/o Mohd. Yousuf Dar, R/o Redwani Bala
Qaimoh Kulgam.
10. Jaivardhana, S/o Mangat Ram, R/o H. No. 331 Lane No.07 Sector 1
Dogra Nagar Muthi Jammu.
11. Fida Hussain Uani, S/o Mohd. Abdullah Wani, R/o Checki Budwani
Kurigam Qazigund.
12. Rifat Gulzar, S/o Gh. Mohd Wani, R/o Gulzar Pora Awantipora
Pulwama.
13. Mohsin Maqbool, S/o Mohd. Maqbolldar, R/o Rangar Chadoora
Budgam.
14. Farooq Ahmed Bhat, S/o Ab Majid Bhat, R/o Zogivar Baramulla.
15. Tariq Ahmed Ganai, S/o Gh. Mohi ud Din Ganai, R/o Kansipora "B"
Baramulla
16. Shamsher Singh, S/o Kirpal Singh, R/o Bather Lahri Khog Tehsil
Billawar, Kathua
17. Mohd. Shafi Dar, S/o Gh Ahmad Dar, R/o Panzgam via Bijbehara
18. Rayaz Ahmad Mir, S/o Gh Mohi u Din Mir, R/o Dardson Kralpora
Kupwara
19. Mohamad Iqbal Rather, S/o Gh Mustafa Rather, R/o Rakhi Shilvath
Sumbal Sonawari
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. A.A.G., Mr. F A Natnoo)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 231/2022
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.619/2017 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.231/2022 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, humbly prayed that relevant record pertaining to the selection of private respondents Nos. 4 to 19, and exclusion of the petitioner, for the post of Assistant Professor (Urdu) in Government Degree College on the basis of, and pursuant to, the advertisement vide notification No. 12-PSC (DR-P) of 2014 dated 29 May 2014 may kindly be called for, and the selection and appointment, if made on the basis thereof, of the said respondents to the said post, quashed, and the petitioner declared selected for, and the concerned respondents directed to appoint him accordingly, to the said post, and from the date of selection and appointment of the said private respondents. Any other writ, order or direction that this Hon. Court may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be granted."
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. 619/2017, originally instituted before the Hon'ble High Court HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 231/2022 of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu, which, upon constitution of this Tribunal, stood transferred and registered as TA No. 231/2022. The applicant invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction seeking quashment of the select list issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission vide Notification No. 08-PSC (DR-S) of 2017 dated 26.02.2017, to the extent it pertains to private respondents Nos. 4 to 19, who were selected and recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Urdu) in Government Degree Colleges pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 12-PSC (DR-P) of 2014 dated 29.05.2014. Consequential relief of his own appointment from the date the selected candidates were appointed was also prayed for.
b) The case of the applicant, as projected in the pleadings, is that he is a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and possesses all the requisite academic and professional qualifications prescribed for the post in question.
He claims to have completed his secondary education in 1998, higher secondary education in 2002, graduation in 2005, post- HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 231/2022 graduation in Urdu in 2007, M.Phil. in 2011, and to have qualified the National Eligibility Test (NET) for lectureship in 2007. He further asserts that he belongs to the Socially and Educationally Backward Class category and was in possession of a valid category certificate issued by the competent authority prior to the cut-off date. In addition, the applicant emphasizes his long teaching experience of about nine years as a contractual lecturer in various Government Degree Colleges, which, according to him, enhanced his claim for selection.
c) It is the applicant's case that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission for filling up, inter alia, 64 posts of Assistant Professor (Urdu), he applied under the reserved category and was permitted to participate in the screening test conducted by the Commission owing to the large number of applicants. Upon declaration of the screening test result, he was shortlisted for interview and was placed at Serial No. 153 in the overall merit list and at Serial No. 11 among the Socially and Educationally Backward Class candidates. He HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 231/2022 thereafter appeared in the interview conducted by the Commission and claims to have performed satisfactorily.
d) The principal grievance of the applicant is that despite his higher merit in the screening test and superior academic credentials as compared to several of the selected candidates, he was not recommended, whereas respondents Nos. 4 to 19, who, according to him, had secured lower marks either in the screening test or in academic qualifications, were selected. The applicant alleges that excessive weightage was accorded to the interview component, which was conducted by multiple committees with different experts, resulting in lack of uniformity and arbitrariness. He contends that the interview marks were used as a tool to negate merit reflected in the written test and academics, thereby vitiating the entire selection process.
e) The applicant has further alleged that the selection lacked transparency, that no clear or disclosed criteria for assessment in interview was followed, and that information sought by him under the Right to Information Act regarding marks and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 231/2022 assessment was not furnished. He thus claims that the selection process was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, warranting judicial interference.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents, particularly the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, have filed a comprehensive reply opposing the Transfer Application and have raised preliminary as well as substantive objections to its maintainability. At the threshold, it is contended that the application does not disclose any infringement of a legal or fundamental right and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine. It is pleaded that the applicant, having consciously participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the procedure and criteria, is estopped from challenging the same merely because he could not find a place in the select list.
b) The respondents have further submitted that the application raises disputed questions of fact relating to comparative merit, assessment in interview, and allocation of marks, which cannot HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 231/2022 be adjudicated in exercise of judicial review. It is asserted that the applicant has no vested or indefeasible right to appointment merely on the basis of participation in the selection process and that selection has been made strictly in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and statutory procedure.
c) On merits, the respondents have explained the background of the recruitment process. It is stated that the Higher Education Department initially referred certain posts for selection, which were later withdrawn and replaced by a revised indent of 1651 posts of Assistant Professors, including 64 posts in the discipline of Urdu. These posts were advertised vide Notification No. 12-PSC (DR-P) of 2014 dated 29.05.2014, and the selection was to be conducted strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules notified vide SRO-124 of 2014 and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980, as amended from time to time.
d) It is further averred that a total of 510 candidates applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Urdu). In view of the large number of applicants, a screening test was conducted on 27.11.2016 in HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 231/2022 terms of Rule 40(ii)(a) of the Business and Procedure Rules.
The result of the screening test was declared on 07.02.2017, and 273 candidates were shortlisted in the prescribed ratio of 1:3 for interview. The applicant was one of the shortlisted candidates and duly participated in the interview held from 16.02.2017 to 19.02.2017, which was conducted with the assistance of subject experts from outside the State.
e) The respondents have categorically stated that the final selection was made on the basis of a composite assessment comprising academic merit, performance in interview, experience, and other permissible weightages strictly in accordance with the rules. The select list was accordingly notified vide Notification No. 08-PSC (DR-S) of 2017 dated 26.02.2017, and recommendations were forwarded to the Government for appointment.
f) It is specifically pleaded that under the RBA category, the cut-
off merit for selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Urdu) was 47.66 points, whereas the applicant secured only 47.40 merit points. Since the applicant's merit was lower than that of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 231/2022 the last selected candidate in his category, he could not be recommended. The respondents have emphasized that even a candidate with lesser merit points was selected only under a horizontal reservation category, which does not advance the applicant's case.
g) The respondents have thus asserted that the selection was fair, transparent, and strictly in accordance with law, and that no arbitrariness, illegality, or mala fide can be attributed to the process. It is prayed that the Transfer Application, being devoid of merit and based on unfounded allegations, be dismissed with costs.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application, registered as TA No. 231/2022, has its genesis in SWP No. 619/2017 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and transferred to this Tribunal consequent upon the constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The applicant seeks quashment of the select list notified by the Jammu and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 231/2022 Kashmir Public Service Commission vide Notification No. 08-PSC (DR-S) of 2017 dated 26.02.2017, to the extent private respondents Nos. 4 to 19 have been selected and recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Urdu) pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 12-PSC (DR-P) of 2014 dated 29.05.2014, with a consequential prayer for his own appointment from the date the private respondents were appointed.
7. The factual backdrop of the case reveals that the Higher Education Department referred a large number of posts of Assistant Professors, including 64 posts in the discipline of Urdu, to the Public Service Commission for selection in accordance with the recruitment rules notified under SRO-124 of 2014 and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980, as amended from time to time. In response to the advertisement, 510 candidates applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Urdu). In view of the large number of applicants, the Commission, exercising its statutory powers, conducted a screening test to shortlist candidates for interview. The applicant participated in the screening test, was HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 231/2022 shortlisted, and thereafter appeared in the interview conducted with the assistance of subject experts from outside the State.
8. It is not in dispute that the applicant was duly considered in the selection process at every stage. The final select list was prepared on the basis of a composite evaluation, taking into account academic merit, performance in the interview, experience, and other admissible weightages, and was notified on 26.02.2017. The applicant, however, could not find place in the select list under his category.
9. The grievance projected by the applicant essentially rests on the assertion that he was more meritorious than several selected candidates, that excessive weightage was accorded to the interview component, that different interview committees led to arbitrariness, and that the interview marks were allegedly used to neutralize merit secured in the screening test and academics. It is further alleged that the selection process lacked transparency and fairness and thus violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
10. The respondents have stoutly opposed the application and have demonstrated, with reference to the record, that the entire selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with the governing HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 231/2022 recruitment rules and statutory procedure. It has been specifically pleaded and shown that under the RBA category, the cut-off merit for selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Urdu) was 47.66 merit points, whereas the applicant secured 47.40 merit points and thus fell below the last selected candidate in his category. This factual position has not been effectively controverted by the applicant.
11. At the outset, it is well settled that participation in a selection process with full knowledge of the procedure and criteria disentitles a candidate from challenging the same after being unsuccessful. The applicant, having willingly participated in the screening test as well as the interview without protest, cannot be permitted to turn around and assail the selection process merely because the outcome has gone against him. The doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
12. Further, it is equally settled law that a candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment merely by virtue of participation in a selection process or inclusion in a select zone. Judicial review in matters of selection is limited and does not extend to sitting in appeal over the assessment of merit made by expert bodies, unless the process is HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 231/2022 shown to be vitiated by mala fides, patent illegality, or violation of statutory rules. The Tribunal cannot substitute its own assessment for that of a duly constituted Selection Committee or Public Service Commission.
13. The contention of the applicant regarding alleged arbitrariness in awarding interview marks also does not merit acceptance. Interviews, when conducted in accordance with the prescribed rules and with the assistance of subject experts, constitute a legitimate mode of assessment. The mere fact that more than one interview committee was constituted, by itself, does not render the selection arbitrary, particularly in large-scale recruitments. The applicant has failed to place any tangible material on record to demonstrate that the interview process was vitiated by bias, mala fides, or extraneous considerations. Bald allegations and conjectures cannot form the basis for judicial interference.
14. The argument that excessive weightage was assigned to the interview component is also misconceived. The record clearly shows that the selection was based on a composite evaluation, including academic merit, screening test performance, experience, and interview, as HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 231/2022 contemplated under the applicable rules. The applicant has not pointed out any specific statutory provision that has been violated in the allocation of marks. In the absence of violation of a statutory rule or demonstrated arbitrariness, the selection process cannot be faulted.
15. It is also significant to note that the applicant admittedly secured lesser merit points than the last selected candidate under his category. Once this factual position is established, the entire edifice of the applicant's claim collapses. Courts and Tribunals have consistently held that a candidate who falls below the cut-off merit has no enforceable right to appointment, even if he may subjectively believe himself to be more meritorious.
16. The allegations relating to non-furnishing of information under the Right to Information Act, even if assumed to be correct, do not ipso facto vitiate a concluded selection process, particularly when the merit position and cut-off are clearly borne out from the record and remain undisputed in substance.
17. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Tribunal finds that the applicant has failed to establish any illegality, arbitrariness, mala fide, or violation of statutory rules in the selection process. The relief HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: TA 231/2022 sought by the applicant would require this Tribunal to re-evaluate comparative merit and sit in judgment over the assessment made by the expert body, which is impermissible in law.
18. Accordingly, the Transfer Application being devoid of merit is dismissed. The selection and recommendations made vide Notification No. 08-PSC (DR-S) of 2017 dated 26.02.2017 are upheld. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV