Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Mohd Araf Khan vs D/O Technical Education on 10 December, 2025
:: 1 :: TA 6609/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 6609/2021
Reserved on: - 11.07.2025
Pronounced on: - 10.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Mohd. Araf Khan S/O Mohd. Shafi Khan R/O Dhargloon Tehsil
Mendhar, District Poonch, age 41 years.
... Petitioner
(Advocate: - Mr. Tariq Mughal)
Versus
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of J&K,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Commissioner/Secretary to Technical Education Department Govt. of
J&K, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
3. Director General, Youth Services and Sports, Department, M.A.
Stadium Jammu.
4. Jammu and Kashmir State Services Selection Board, Board through
its Chairman, Sehkari Bhawan, Rail Head Complex, Jammu.
5. Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir State Services Selection Board
Sehkari Bhawan, Rail Head Complex, Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 6609/2021
6. Secretary, Jammu and Kashmir State Services Selection Board,
Sehkari Bhawan Rail Head Complex, Jammu.
7. Administrative Officer, Jammu and Kashmir State Service selection
Board, 1-D/C Green Belt Park, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
8. Comissioner/Secretary to Government General Administration
Department Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar.
...Respondents
(Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thapa, Ld. AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 6609/2021
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.387/2012 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.6609/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) "to quash Advertisement Notice No. 02 of 2011 dated 28th December 2011 to the extent by which the Service Selection Board has advertised one physical Education Teacher Post for District Cadre Baramulla under ALC category, by issuance of writ of Certiorari;
b) to issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher District Cadre Baramulla in pursuance of Notification No. 01 of 2009 dated 24.01.2009, as the petitioner has been duly selected in the provisional select list at Sr. No. 1 under ALC category, by issuance of writ of mandamus;
c) to issue directions to the respondents restraining them to make any appointment against the post of Physical Education Teacher District Cadre Baramulla under ALC category, by issuance of writ of prohibition;
d) to declare the Advertisement Notice No. 02 of 2011 dated 28th December 2011 to the extent by which the Service Selection Board has advertised one physical Education Teacher Post for District Cadre Baramulla under ALC category, as ultra virus, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 6609/2021 unconstitutional, and contrary to the provision of law by issuance of writ of mandamus, AND
e) Any other writ, order or directions as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents with cost."
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
a) The petitioner, Mohd. Araf Khan, a permanent resident of District Poonch belonging to the ALC category and possessing the qualification of 10+2 and C.P.Ed, applied pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2009 dated 24.01.2009 issued by the J&K Services Selection Board, whereby four posts of Physical Education Teacher in District Cadre Baramulla were notified, including one post reserved for the ALC category. The petitioner, being fully eligible, applied under the ALC category.
A shortlisting notification was published in the State Times on 04.10.2009 and the petitioner's name appeared at Serial No. 6 under the ALC category with B-Code 543318. The petitioner HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 6609/2021 asserts that he was interviewed in October 2009 and performed well.
b) Subsequently, a provisional select list was published in Daily Excelsior on 18.03.2010 wherein the petitioner figured at Serial No. 1 under the ALC category for District Cadre Baramulla. However, on 20.10.2010 the final select list for Physical Education Teachers was issued, containing 101 candidates, and no candidate under the ALC category was selected; the ALC post was left unfilled. According to the petitioner, this exclusion was arbitrary and without assigning any reason, as his name was removed despite being provisionally selected and falling at the top of the merit list.
c) The petitioner made repeated representations, including one under the RTI Act dated 05.08.2011, seeking reasons for non- issuance of appointment order and copies of documents submitted with his application. According to him, no explanation was provided, nor was any corrigendum issued cancelling the provisional list or explaining the omission of the ALC category in the final select list.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 6 :: TA 6609/2021
d) Meanwhile, the respondents issued Advertisement Notice No.
02 of 2011 dated 28.12.2011, again advertising one post of Physical Education Teacher (ALC) for District Baramulla--the same post against which the petitioner had already been provisionally selected. The petitioner challenges this fresh advertisement as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16, submitting that once he was selected provisionally and the ALC post was available, the respondents were bound to issue appointment. He submits that fresh advertisement has deprived him of his right to appointment, particularly since he has now become over-age.
e) The petitioner argues that the respondents wrongly withheld filling of the ALC post while filling all other categories under the same advertisement; that the provisional select list stood in his favour; and that issuance of the fresh advertisement without cancelling the earlier process amounts to non-application of mind, arbitrariness, and violation of natural justice. According to him, he fulfilled all eligibility criteria and his non-selection was the result of bias and favoritism.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 7 :: TA 6609/2021
f) He prays for quashing the 2011 advertisement to the extent of
the ALC post in Baramulla, for mandamus directing consideration of his candidature for appointment under Notification No. 01/2009, and for prohibiting the respondents from making appointment under the fresh advertisement.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The respondents submit that no right of the petitioner has been infringed and the petition is not maintainable. According to them, the petitioner has concealed material facts and misrepresented the selection process. They clarify that the petitioner indeed applied under Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2009 for one ALC post in District Cadre Baramulla and his name appeared in the shortlisting list; however, no interview was conducted for this advertisement and no select list was issued under Notification 01/2009 because the selection process was halted midway due to the enforcement of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act, 2010.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 8 :: TA 6609/2021
b) They assert that instructions dated 30.08.2010 were issued by
the General Administration Department directing re-
advertisement of 801 posts (including the petitioner's post), as the recruitment rules had undergone a statutory change. The Board sought exemption, but the Government declined, and later clarified through Law Department communication dated 28.03.2011 that all posts for which interview/selection had not been completed must be re-advertised under the new Act. Since only shortlisting had occurred and no interviews were held, the petitioner had acquired no right of selection.
c) It is further stated that the provisional select list referred to by the petitioner (dated 18.03.2010) was not issued under Advertisement No. 01/2009 but under previous Advertisement Notifications 03/2006 and 06/2008. The petitioner, according to the respondents, has deliberately attempted to mislead the Court by projecting that the provisional list pertains to Advertisement No. 01/2009. The respondents deny that the petitioner was interviewed under the 2009 advertisement or that any final select list was issued under it.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 9 :: TA 6609/2021
d) They submit that the fresh Advertisement Notice No. 02 of
2011 was issued strictly in compliance with statutory directions owing to the coming into force of the Decentralization Act, and the respondents were duty-bound to re-advertise the post. No constitutional or legal rights of the petitioner were violated as no vested right accrues from a provisional list, particularly one that pertains to a different advertisement altogether.
e) The reply further states that the petitioner's grievance arises entirely from his incorrect assumption that he was selected under the 2009 advertisement, whereas the selection process never reached the stage of interviews or final list due to the mandatory statutory changes. The respondents assert that the petition is devoid of merit, based on concealment of correct facts, and liable to dismissal.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 10 :: TA 6609/2021
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application, earlier filed as SWP No. 980/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal, calls in question Advertisement Notice No. 02 of 2011 dated 28.12.2011 to the extent it re-advertises one post of Physical Education Teacher in District Cadre Baramulla under the ALC category, and seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the said post on the ground that his name had appeared in a provisional select list under ALC category pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2009. The petitioner submits that he had applied under the ALC category; that his name appeared in the shortlisting notification; that he was interviewed and thereafter provisionally selected; and that despite being the highest-ranked candidate under ALC, his name did not appear in the final select list, while the post under ALC category was left unfilled. He further contends that instead of issuing appointment order in his favour, the respondents wrongly issued a fresh advertisement for the same post in HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 6609/2021 the year 2011, thereby depriving him of his legitimate right of appointment, more so when he has now become over-aged.
7. The respondents, however, have clearly placed on record that the petitioner is incorrectly relying upon a provisional select list dated 18.03.2010, which was not issued pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2009, but under earlier Notifications 03 of 2006 and 06 of 2008. It is specifically stated that pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2009, only the shortlisting of candidates was done and no interviews whatsoever were conducted, nor was any select list ever issued under the said notification. The petitioner's assertion that he was interviewed and selected under the 2009 recruitment cycle stands categorically denied. It is further explained that before the selection process could proceed further for the 2009 advertisement, the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act, 2010 came into force. Vide Government instructions dated 30.08.2010, the respondents were mandatorily required to re-advertise 801 posts, including the present post, in accordance with the new statutory framework. The respondents sought exemption, but the Government declined and clarified through HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 6609/2021 the Law Department that all posts for which interviews had not been conducted must be re-advertised. Since only shortlisting had been done and no interview or selection had taken place, the selection process under Advertisement No. 01 of 2009 legally came to an end and the posts were re-advertised strictly pursuant to statutory directions. It is further submitted that being only the intending department, the respondents have no role in the selection process, which is exclusively conducted by the J&K Services Selection Board, and that the petitioner has no enforceable right on the basis of a provisional list relating to an earlier advertisement.
8. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material placed on record, it becomes evident that the entire edifice of the petitioner's case rests on the assumption that the provisional list dated 18.03.2010 pertains to Advertisement No. 01 of 2009. The record produced by the respondents, however, fully demonstrates that the said provisional list was issued for earlier advertisements of 2006 and 2008 and not for Advertisement No. 01 of 2009. The petitioner has not produced any document issued by the SSB to show that the provisional list dated 18.03.2010 belongs to the 2009 recruitment cycle. Once it is found HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 6609/2021 that the provisional list does not relate to the advertisement under which the petitioner applied, the claim that he had been "duly selected" or that he had any accrued right collapses.
9. Even otherwise, it is well-settled in law that mere inclusion in a provisional list confers no enforceable right of appointment. A provisional list is tentative and subject to compliance with rules, verification, preparation of final list and fulfilment of all pre- conditions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that unless the candidate finds place in the final select list, he cannot claim any vested right of appointment. The petitioner admittedly does not figure in any final select list issued pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2009, for the simple reason that no such final list was ever issued, the process itself having been stopped midway due to intervention of statutory changes.
10. The argument of the petitioner that he was interviewed is specifically and categorically denied by the SSB. The petitioner has not produced any call letter, interview slip, attendance sheet, or any supporting document to establish that he was indeed interviewed under Notification No. 01 of 2009. On the contrary, the respondents have HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 6609/2021 given a clear explanation that the selection process never advanced to the stage of interview. In the absence of any material, this Tribunal cannot accept the petitioner's bare assertion that he was interviewed.
11. The respondents have also placed statutory instructions on record to show that the Decentralization Act, 2010 mandated re-advertisement of the posts for which the selection process had not reached the stage of interview. The respondents have thus acted strictly in accordance with binding directions issued by the Government and the Law Department. This Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over administrative decisions taken in compliance with statutory mandates, nor can it compel the respondents to ignore binding legislation merely to accommodate one candidate. Judicial review cannot be exercised to rewrite recruitment rules or undo statutory consequences. There is no arbitrariness, mala fide or violation of Articles 14 or 16 in following a statutory requirement.
12. The plea that the petitioner has now become over-aged cannot vest him with any right to appointment contrary to law. It is well settled that hardship or equities cannot override explicit statutory requirements. Similarly, the plea that the respondents should not have HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 6609/2021 re-advertised the posts is misconceived, because the re-advertisement was not discretionary but mandatory due to operation of the 2010 Act. The petitioner therefore cannot seek quashing of Advertisement No. 02 of 2011, which is in conformity with statutory provisions.
13. This Tribunal also notes that the petitioner has not challenged the Decentralization Act, 2010 or the Government instructions mandating re-advertisement. Without challenging the statutory foundation itself, no relief can be granted against consequential executive action. The settled legal position is that courts cannot direct appointment when the recruitment process itself has been lawfully annulled or superseded before completion.
14. Thus, after evaluating the entire factual matrix, the documents and the statutory framework, this Tribunal finds no infirmity, arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the respondents. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any enforceable right to appointment, nor any procedural irregularity warranting interference. The petition is founded on a factual misconception and an incorrect premise regarding the provisional list. No relief can be granted on such a basis.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 16 :: TA 6609/2021
15. Accordingly, the Transfer Application is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV