Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Bilal Ahmad vs Home Department on 5 May, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 714/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 714/2024
Reserved on:- 01.08.2025
Pronounced on: - 05.05.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Bilal Ahmad Age 31 years, S/o Shri Abdul Aziz, R/o Village
Breswana Pershoola, Tehsil Mohalla District Doda 182202
...Applicant
(By Advocate: - Mr. Navyug sethi)
VERSUS
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, Through Principal
Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar.
180001
2. Director General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir, Police HQ,
Jammu/Srinagar. 180001
3. Inspector General of Police, Jammu Zone, Jammu. 180001
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 714/2024
4. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Doda-Kishtwar-Ramban Range,
HQ Batote District Ramban 182144
5. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda. 182202
6.J&K Service Selection Board, Sehkar Bhawan, Rail Head Complex,
Jammu through its Chairman/Secretary. 180001
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 714/2024
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) In view of the facts stated in para 4 supra and legal grounds urged in para 5 of this OA and those to be urged at the time of the hearing, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may very graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as Sub Inspector, J&K Police under RBA category in reference to his selection in furtherance of Final Select List issued by the J&K Service Selection Board notification no.01-Selecton of 2024 respondent no. 6 vide dated 08.01.2024 and recommendations made by respondent no.6 in favour of the applicant without finding fault with the character verification report of the applicant, w.e.f. the date similarly situated incumbents who have been selected along with the applicant have been appointed and grant him all HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 retrospective consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, allowances, seniority, etc."
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicant, namely Bilal Ahmad, has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Sub Inspector, J&K Police, under the RBA category, pursuant to his selection in the final select list issued by the J&K Service Selection Board vide Notification No. 01-
Selection of 2024 dated 08.01.2024, with all consequential benefits including seniority, salary, allowances and other service benefits from the date similarly situated selected candidates were appointed.
b) The case of the applicant is that the J&K Service Selection Board, on the basis of requisition received from the Home Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, issued Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2021 dated 21.10.2021, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 inviting applications for 800 UT Cadre posts of Sub Inspectors in J&K Police under different categories. Subsequently, by another notification dated 24.11.2021, the number of advertised posts was increased from 800 to 1200, including 120 posts under the RBA category.
c) The applicant claims that he was fully eligible and qualified in terms of the advertisement notification and, accordingly, applied for the post of Sub Inspector under the RBA category. He participated in the selection process, appeared in the written examination, and after qualifying the same, was called for the Physical Standard Test and Physical Endurance Test. The applicant asserts that he successfully qualified all stages of the selection process.
d) It is further pleaded that after completion of the selection process, the J&K Service Selection Board issued the final select list vide Notification No. 01-Selection of 2024 dated 08.01.2024, wherein the applicant was declared selected against HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 the UT Cadre post of Sub Inspector under the RBA category. His name figures at Serial No. 60 in the RBA category.
e) The applicant states that after issuance of the final select list, the Service Selection Board recommended the names of selected candidates to the Home Department, which in turn forwarded the recommendations to the Director General of Police, J&K, for issuance of appointment orders. The recommendations were thereafter forwarded to the concerned Senior Superintendents of Police for necessary action and issuance of appointment orders.
f) According to the applicant, the candidates belonging to District Doda were to be issued appointment orders by the concerned authority. Since the applicant also belongs to District Doda, his name was also forwarded for issuance of appointment order. However, while appointment orders were issued in favour of other selected candidates, the appointment order in favour of the applicant was not issued.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 7 :: O.A. No. 714/2024
g) The applicant contends that on enquiry, he came to know that
his police/CID verification had not been cleared on the ground that his brother, namely Aftab Ahmad, while studying in 10th standard, had allegedly been abducted by militants and was stated to have remained associated with a militant outfit and was later killed in an encounter in the year 1999-2000. The applicant submits that the alleged conduct or involvement of his brother cannot be attributed to him and cannot be made a ground to deny him appointment, particularly when there is nothing adverse against the applicant himself.
h) The applicant has further pleaded that he has an immaculate character and no FIR, criminal case, adverse record, or any material whatsoever exists against him. He asserts that he has never been involved in any unlawful activity and that there is no adverse report regarding his own conduct, integrity, antecedents or character.
i) The applicant submits that all similarly situated selected candidates were appointed in the months of February and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 March, 2024, whereas he alone was denied appointment. He, therefore, submitted a representation dated 30.03.2024 before respondent No. 2, requesting reconsideration of his verification report and issuance of appointment order in his favour. When no action was taken, he submitted another representation dated 24.06.2024, but the same also did not yield any result.
j) The applicant alleges that he is being penalized for the alleged past conduct of his brother, which allegedly took place around 24 years prior, when the applicant himself was a child. He submits that there is neither any FIR nor any public record establishing the alleged involvement of his brother in militancy- related activities, and even otherwise, such alleged involvement cannot legally be made the basis to deny appointment to the applicant.
k) It is further contended that denial of appointment to the applicant despite his selection is arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The applicant has also placed reliance HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Manyata Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 10 SCC 198, Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramashankar Raghuvanshi, (1983) 2 SCC 145, to contend that a person cannot be denied public employment merely on the basis of allegations relating to a family member and in the absence of any adverse material against the candidate himself.
l) The applicant has also referred to a similar matter pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, in O.A. No. 383/2024 titled Farhat Zaffar v. UT of J&K and others, wherein the appointment of the selected candidate was allegedly withheld on account of the background of her father, and the Tribunal had directed that the post in question be kept reserved.
m) The applicant apprehends that due to the adverse verification report or withholding of verification clearance, the respondents may cancel his selection. He, therefore, seeks a direction to the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 respondents to clear his police/CID verification and issue appointment order in his favour as Sub Inspector, J&K Police, with all consequential benefits.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have also pleaded that the applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and has attempted to mislead the Tribunal by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. According to the respondents, the Original Application suffers from suppressio veri and suggestio falsi and is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
b) On merits, the respondents admit that the applicant had applied for the post of Police Sub Inspector in J&K Police pursuant to JKSSB Notification No. 06 of 2021 dated 21.10.2021 under the RBA category from District Doda. It is also admitted that the applicant succeeded in securing a place in the final selection list HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 issued vide JKSSB Notification No. 01-Selection of 2024 dated 08.01.2024.
c) However, the respondents submit that as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement notification, the selection of candidates was subject to verification of testimonials, reserved category certificates and other documents produced by them during the recruitment process. Apart from verification of documents, satisfactory verification of character and antecedents from the CID Wing was also an essential requirement before issuance of formal appointment orders.
d) The respondents rely upon Government Order No. 528- JK(GAD) of 2021 dated 21.06.2021, read with Circular No. 05-JK(GAD) of 2024 dated 18.01.2024, and submit that issuance of appointment order was dependent upon receipt of a satisfactory character and antecedents verification report from the CID Wing.
e) It is pleaded that after the applicant's selection, verification of his character and antecedents was sought by the DIG, Doda-
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 Kishtwar-Ramban Range, who was the appointing authority, from the CID Wing. In response, the CID Wing submitted its report vide Form No. 95603 dated 20.03.2024.
f) As per the said report, the applicant was not recommended by the Review Committee in its meeting held on 09.03.2024. The report stated that the applicant's brother, Aftab Ahmad, was a terrorist who had joined the HUJI outfit in the year 2000 and was killed in an encounter with security forces at Keshwan, Kishtwar, in the year 2002. The report further stated that the applicant's suitability for appointment in the Police Department was assessed and he was found not suitable for appointment in view of his susceptibility to inducement or coercion by terrorists to work for them.
g) The respondents submit that in view of the aforesaid adverse verification report, the appointing authority did not issue formal appointment order in favour of the applicant. It is their stand that no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 respondents, as the appointment was expressly subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents.
h) The respondents further submit that after issuance of the final selection list, the Home Department assigned the J&K Police Department the task of issuing formal appointment orders in favour of the selected candidates. However, since the CID Wing did not recommend the applicant, his appointment order could not be issued.
i) With regard to the applicant's representations, the respondents submit that the applicant had approached the authorities and had also filed the present Original Application before this Tribunal. It is stated that while considering the matter, this Tribunal, vide order dated 12.07.2024, directed the respondents to keep one post of Sub Inspector under the RBA category reserved for the applicant till disposal of the present Original Application.
j) The respondents have further stated that the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by this Tribunal was submitted to the J&K HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 Service Selection Board through the Home Department for compliance.
k) It is further pleaded that the applicant had also submitted a representation through the J&K Grievance Cell requesting that his case be placed before the UT Level Screening Committee for review. Accordingly, the case of the applicant was forwarded to the UT Level Screening Committee vide PHQ letter dated 19.09.2024, with a request that the decision taken by the said Committee be shared with Police Headquarters for further course of action.
l) In response to the applicant's allegation of discrimination, the respondents submit that the candidates in whose favour appointment orders were issued had satisfied the requisite conditions, including satisfactory character and antecedents verification. The applicant, however, was not similarly situated, as his CID verification was not satisfactory and he had not been recommended by the Review Committee.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 15 :: O.A. No. 714/2024
m) The respondents further submit that the reliance placed by the
applicant upon the case of Farhat Zaffar v. UT of J&K and others is misplaced. According to the respondents, in that case also, the Tribunal had only passed an interim direction for keeping one post reserved, similar to the order passed in the present case. Therefore, the said case does not confer any right upon the applicant to claim appointment.
n) The respondents have denied that any fundamental right of the applicant has been violated. They submit that mere selection does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, particularly when the selection itself was subject to verification of character and antecedents and when the applicant has not been found suitable by the competent authority.
o) It is the specific stand of the respondents that the appointing authority has acted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement notification, the applicable Government Orders and the verification report received from the CID Wing. Therefore, according to the respondents, the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 Original Application is without merit and deserves to be dismissed.
p) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the respondents pray for dismissal of the Original Application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. The applicant, namely Bilal Ahmad, has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Sub Inspector, J&K Police, under the RBA category, pursuant to his selection in the final select list issued by the J&K Service Selection Board vide Notification No. 01-Selection of 2024 dated 08.01.2024, with all consequential benefits including seniority, salary, allowances and other benefits from the date similarly situated selected candidates were appointed.
6. The brief facts, as pleaded by the applicant, are that the J&K Service Selection Board issued Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2021 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 dated 21.10.2021 for filling up 800 UT Cadre posts of Sub Inspectors in J&K Police under different categories. Thereafter, by subsequent notification dated 24.11.2021, the number of posts was enhanced from 800 to 1200, including posts under the RBA category.
7. The applicant, claiming himself to be fully eligible, applied for the post of Sub Inspector under the RBA category. He participated in the selection process, qualified the written examination, and thereafter appeared in and qualified the Physical Standard Test and Physical Endurance Test. After completion of the selection process, the J&K Service Selection Board issued the final select list vide Notification No. 01-Selection of 2024 dated 08.01.2024. The name of the applicant figured at Serial No. 60 under the RBA category. Thereafter, the recommendations were forwarded to the Home Department, and subsequently to the Police Department, for issuance of appointment orders.
8. The grievance of the applicant is that though other selected candidates were issued appointment orders, the appointment order in his favour was withheld. On enquiry, he came to know that his police/CID HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 verification had not been cleared on the ground that his brother, namely Aftab Ahmad, had allegedly joined a militant outfit and had been killed in an encounter. The applicant submits that there is no adverse material against him personally. He has not been involved in any criminal case, nor is there any FIR or adverse record against him. According to him, the alleged conduct of his brother cannot be attributed to him and he cannot be denied appointment merely because of the antecedents of a family member. He further submits that his brother was allegedly abducted by militants when he was studying in 10th standard and that the alleged incident is stated to be of the year 1999-2000, when the applicant himself was only a child.
9. The applicant further pleads that denial of appointment despite his selection is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manyata Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 10 SCC 198, Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramashankar Raghuvanshi, (1983) 2 SCC 145, to contend that a person cannot be HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 denied public employment merely on the basis of allegations relating to another member of his family.
10. The respondents have filed their written statement opposing the claim of the applicant. According to the respondents, mere inclusion of the applicant's name in the select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, particularly when the selection was subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents. The respondents admit that the applicant had applied for the post of Sub Inspector pursuant to JKSSB Notification No. 06 of 2021 dated 21.10.2021 and that his name figured in the final selection list issued vide Notification No. 01-Selection of 2024 dated 08.01.2024. However, it is their specific stand that as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement notification, and also in view of Government Order No. 528-JK(GAD) of 2021 dated 21.06.2021 read with Circular No. 05-JK(GAD) of 2024 dated 18.01.2024, issuance of appointment order was subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents from the CID Wing.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 :: O.A. No. 714/2024
11. The respondents further submit that verification with regard to the character and antecedents of the applicant was sought from the CID Wing. In response, the CID Wing submitted its report vide Form No. 95603 dated 20.03.2024. As per the said report, the applicant was not recommended by the Review Committee in its meeting held on 09.03.2024. The report records that the applicant's brother, namely Aftab Ahmad, had joined the HUJI outfit in the year 2000 and was killed in the year 2002 in an encounter with security forces at Keshwan, Kishtwar. The report further records that, keeping in view the said facts, the suitability of the applicant for appointment in the Police Department was assessed and he was found not suitable for the appointment in view of his susceptibility to inducement or coercion by terrorists. The respondents submit that in view of the aforesaid adverse verification report, the formal appointment order in favour of the applicant could not be issued. They further submit that the applicant's case was also forwarded to the UT Level Screening Committee vide communication dated 19.09.2024 for appropriate HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 21 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 decision, after the applicant submitted a representation through the J&K Grievance Cell.
12. It is not in dispute that the applicant participated in the selection process and his name was included in the final select list issued by the J&K Service Selection Board. However, the crucial question is whether selection by itself creates an absolute right to appointment. The law on this point is well settled. A candidate whose name appears in a select list does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment. Appointment can be denied if the competent authority finds, on legally permissible grounds, that the candidate is not suitable for public service.
13. In the present case, the selection itself was not unconditional. It was specifically subject to verification of documents, testimonials, category certificates and, more importantly, satisfactory verification of character and antecedents. The post in question is not an ordinary civil post. It is the post of Sub Inspector in J&K Police, a disciplined force dealing with law and order, public safety, counter-insurgency, internal security and sensitive policing duties. Therefore, the standard HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 22 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 of suitability and trustworthiness required for such appointment is necessarily higher.
14. The respondents have relied upon Government Order No. 528- JK(GAD) of 2021 dated 21.06.2021 read with Circular No. 05- JK(GAD) of 2024 dated 18.01.2024, according to which satisfactory verification of character and antecedents is a pre-condition for appointment. Once the appointment was expressly subject to such verification, the applicant cannot claim that appointment must follow automatically merely because his name appeared in the select list.
15. The record shows that the CID Wing, after verification, did not recommend the applicant. The report states that his brother Aftab Ahmad had joined the HUJI outfit in the year 2000 and was killed in the year 2002 in an encounter with security forces at Keshwan, Kishtwar. It further records that, after assessing the applicant's suitability for appointment in the Police Department, he was found not suitable in view of his susceptibility to inducement or coercion by terrorists.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 :: O.A. No. 714/2024
16. The applicant has strongly argued that he cannot be punished for the alleged conduct of his brother. As a broad proposition, there can be no quarrel with the principle that a person cannot ordinarily be denied employment merely on account of the act of a relative. However, the present case has to be examined in the context of the nature of appointment, the post involved, and the assessment made by the competent security agency.
17. The appointment in question is to the Police Department in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The police force is entrusted with sensitive duties. It has access to confidential information, weapons, operational details, field intelligence, internal deployment, law and order plans and security-related material. In such appointments, the State is entitled to insist upon a higher degree of confidence and satisfaction regarding the antecedents, reliability and suitability of the candidate.
18. The Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the competent verification agency has not merely reproduced a family history but has assessed the suitability of the applicant in relation to appointment in the Police HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 24 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 Department. The report specifically records that the applicant was found not suitable for the instant appointment on account of possible susceptibility to inducement or coercion by terrorists. Whether such perception is ultimately correct or incorrect is not for this Tribunal to reassess as an appellate authority over security verification.
19. Judicial review in such matters is limited. The Tribunal can examine whether the decision is mala fide, arbitrary, based on no material, or contrary to statutory provisions. However, the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority in matters involving security assessment and suitability for appointment in a disciplined force. The Court or Tribunal does not possess the institutional expertise to substitute its own assessment for that of the agency entrusted with verification of antecedents.
20. It is also relevant that the respondents have not cancelled the selection of the applicant on any extraneous ground. They have only withheld appointment because the mandatory condition of satisfactory character and antecedents verification was not fulfilled. Therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 25 :: O.A. No. 714/2024
21. The applicant has relied upon the judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471. The said judgment mainly deals with suppression or disclosure of criminal cases by candidates and the manner in which employers should consider such cases. The said judgment does not lay down that a candidate must be appointed even if the competent authority, after antecedent verification, finds him unsuitable for appointment to a disciplined or sensitive force. Rather, the broad principle emerging from the judgment is that the employer is entitled to consider the nature of the post, the nature of antecedents and the suitability of the candidate.
22. The reliance placed on Ramashankar Raghuvanshi also does not advance the case of the applicant in the facts of the present matter. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated denial of employment merely on the ground of political association. The present case, however, concerns appointment in the Police Department and an adverse security/antecedent verification report by the CID Wing. The two situations are not identical.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 26 :: O.A. No. 714/2024
23. The applicant has also relied upon the case of Farhat Zaffar v. UT of J&K and others pending before the Srinagar Bench of this Tribunal. However, as rightly pointed out by the respondents, in that case also only an interim protection was granted by directing the respondents to keep one post reserved. In the present case too, this Tribunal, vide order dated 12.07.2024, directed the respondents to keep one post of Sub Inspector under the RBA category reserved for the applicant till disposal of the Original Application. Such interim protection does not decide the merits of the claim and cannot be treated as a declaration of right in favour of the applicant.
24. The contention that similarly situated candidates have been appointed also cannot be accepted. The applicant has not shown that any other candidate, having a similar adverse verification report, has been appointed. The candidates who were issued appointment orders were those whose verification was found satisfactory. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity with candidates who had fulfilled the condition of satisfactory antecedent verification.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 27 :: O.A. No. 714/2024
25. The plea based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is also without substance. Equality cannot be claimed in abstraction. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, but it does not compel the employer to appoint a candidate whose antecedent verification is not satisfactory, especially where the appointment is to a disciplined force. The applicant was permitted to participate in the selection process and was considered. His appointment was withheld only at the stage of mandatory verification. Thus, there is no hostile discrimination.
26. The plea of violation of Article 21 is equally misconceived. The right to livelihood cannot be stretched to mean that a candidate must be appointed to a sensitive police post despite an adverse antecedent verification report. Public employment is governed by rules, conditions of recruitment, suitability, verification and administrative satisfaction. Where the prescribed conditions are not fulfilled, denial of appointment cannot be termed violation of Article 21.
27. We are conscious of the submission of the applicant that there is no personal criminal case or FIR against him. However, for appointment HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 28 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 to a disciplined force, absence of a criminal case is not the only consideration. The appointing authority is entitled to consider overall suitability, antecedents, security implications and public interest. A person may have no criminal case against him and yet may not be found suitable for a sensitive post on the basis of antecedent verification.
28. The Tribunal also cannot lose sight of the fact that the matter concerns the Police Department of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, where security considerations cannot be lightly brushed aside. The employer is best placed to assess whether a candidate can be safely inducted into the police force. Unless the decision is shown to be actuated by mala fides or based on wholly irrelevant considerations, interference is not warranted.
29. In the present case, no mala fides have been pleaded or established against any particular officer. The verification report is not shown to be fabricated or non-existent. The applicant may dispute the conclusion, but mere disagreement with the assessment of the CID HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 29 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 Wing or Review Committee cannot be a ground for this Tribunal to direct appointment.
30. It is also significant that the respondents have stated that the applicant's representation has been forwarded to the UT Level Screening Committee vide PHQ letter dated 19.09.2024. Thus, the authorities have not acted mechanically; rather, the matter has been placed before the appropriate authority for consideration as per the applicable procedure. However, pendency or forwarding of the representation cannot create a right in favour of the applicant to seek a positive mandamus for appointment.
31. The relief sought by the applicant is for direct appointment as Sub Inspector with retrospective benefits. Such relief cannot be granted unless this Tribunal records a finding that the adverse verification report is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide or based on no material. No such case is made out.
32. The post of Sub Inspector is a post of trust and responsibility. The employer must have full confidence in the integrity, reliability and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 30 :: O.A. No. 714/2024 suitability of the person to be appointed. Where such confidence is absent on account of an adverse report by the competent verification agency, this Tribunal would not be justified in compelling the respondents to appoint the applicant.
33. Therefore, having considered the pleadings, the applicable conditions of recruitment, the nature of the post, and the adverse character and antecedent verification report, we are of the considered view that the respondents have not committed any illegality in withholding issuance of appointment order in favour of the applicant.
34. In view of the above discussion, we hold that:
a) Mere selection of the applicant by the J&K Service Selection Board does not confer upon him an indefeasible right to appointment.
b) The appointment was subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 31 :: O.A. No. 714/2024
c) The CID Wing did not recommend the applicant and the Review Committee found him not suitable for appointment in the Police Department.
d) The decision of the respondents is based upon antecedent/security verification and cannot be termed arbitrary, discriminatory or illegal.
e) This Tribunal cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority in matters concerning suitability for appointment in a disciplined police force.
35. Consequently, the Original Application is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
36. Interim order, if any, including the direction to keep one post reserved, shall stand vacated.
37. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit /
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV