Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Pankaj Sharma vs General Administrative Department on 10 April, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
Reserved on: - 11.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 10.04.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. TA/7548/2021
1. Rajnish Proyia, aged 26 years S/o Sh. Puran Chand R/o Village
Palial, P.O Banhore, Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua.
2. Sunita Devi, aged 41 years D/o Sh. Beli Ram W/o Sh. Jia Lal
R/o Village Palial, P.O Banhore, Tehsil Billawar, District
Kathua.
3. Joginder Kumar, aged 37 years S/o Lal Chand R/o V.P.O
Bhaddu, Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua
4. Kuldeep Kumar, aged 31 years S/o Sh. Babu Ram R/o Village
Palial, P.O Banhore, Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua.
5. Bodh Raj, aged 29 years S/o Sh. Babu Ram R/o Village Palial,
P.O Banhore, Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
6 Deep Kumar, aged 30 years S/o Late Sh. Sukar Ram R/o V.P.O
Banhore, Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua.
7 Darshan Kumar, aged 37 years S/o Late Sh. Sukar Ram R/o
V.P.O Banhore, Tehsil Billawar, District Kathu,
8 Jugal Kishore, aged 43 years S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram R/o V.RO
Banhore, Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua.
9. Pankaj Billawaria S/o Sh. Babu Singh R/o Dhamlar P.O. Raipur
Tehsil Billawar District Kathua., Age-33 yrs
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. Karan Sharma, Mr. Pankaj Basotra)
Versus
1 State of Jammu and Kashmir, through Commissioner/Secretary,
Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir, General Administration Department
(GAD) Jammu
2 Deputy Commissioner Kathua Chairman, District Lvel Class-IVth
Appointment Committee, Kathua.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
3 Daljeet Singh S/o Sh. Deputy Ram R/o Camp Knour Tehsil +
Akhnoor District Jammu
4 Gandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Sohan Lal R/o Ranjari Tehsil + bist
Samba
5 Manmohan Singh S/o Sh. Bishamber Singh R/o Sunail Tehsil
Akhnoor District Jammu
6 Ishtaq Ahmed S/o Sartaj Ahmed R/o Munda Tehsil Bhade
Bhaderwah, District
7 Tehsil & bistt. Jatinder Sambyal S/o Suraj Singh R/o Mandi Kotli
Samba
8 Mohd. Zabar S/o Mohd. Bashir R/o Gagote NSR Rajouri, District
Rajouri
9 Ajay Choudhary S/o Mohinder Singh R/o Jagpur Tehsil + bist#
Samba
10 Manjeet Singh S/o Deputy Ram C/o Roshan Lal H. No. 286,
Gali No. 14, Nanak Nagar, Jammu
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
11 Ramesh Chander S/o Darshan Lal R/o Kalal Nowshera,
Rajouri,District Rajouri.
12 Suraj Chand S/e Sita Ram R/o Dhalery Tehsil Akhnoor District
Jammu
13 Joginder Paul S/o Kuldeep Raj R/o Bakhoe PO & Tehsil
Kalakote, District
14 Mohd. Zabied S/o Mohd. Bashir R/o Gagrote Tehsil Nowshera
Distric. Rajouri
15 Ajay Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar R/o Platan Akhnoor, Jammu,
District Jammu.
16 Hardeep Singh S/o Krishan Singh R/o DollianPO Bari
Brahmana Jammu, bistrict Jammy.
17 Radha Devi D/o Hari Lal R/o Kakol Tehsil Bhaderwah Doda
18 Surishta Devi D/o Gulab Raj R/o Bara PO Sunjwan Tehsil - bistt
Samba
19 Neelam Rajput W/o Jasbir Singh R/o Narayan Tehsil Akhnoor
District Jammu
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
20 Rajneesh Kiran S/o Thakar Dass R/o Village Kanthal PO and
Block Bani Tehsil Akhnoor Jammu
21 Khilwar Badal S/o Isher Dass R/o VPO Nagrota Prehta Tehsil
Basohli, District Kathua.
22 Pardeep Kumar Bali S/o Bishamber Dass R/o Kank PO Chakra
Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua. 4
23 Tarsem Lal S/o Bal Mukand R/o Hursath PO Ghagwal Tehsil
Hiranagar, bistrict Kathua.
24 Dilawar Singh S/o Raghbir Singh R/o Dalhoti PO Amala Tehsil
Hiranagar, District Kathua. 2
25 Zalim Singh S/o Ananat Ram R/o Kandharnoo PO Kandharnoo
Tehsil Billawar, Dist District Kathua. 2
26 Mohd. Ayoub S/o Sh. Mohd. Hussain R/o VPO Malhar district
Kathua
27 Gurdeep Singh S/o Arma Singh R/o VPO Lachhipur Tehsil and
District Kathua
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 6 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
28 Rajesh Kumar S/o Baldev Raj R/o VPO Palli Tehsil and District
Kathua
29 Vinod Kumar S/o Amir Chand R/o Banair Kootha Tehsil
Hiranagar District Kathua
30 Sanjay Kumar S/o Kundu Ram VPO Gurha Mehtian Tehsil and
District Kathua
31 Ramesh Singh S/o Sh. Bali Ram R/o Thanthu VPO Gurha
Kalyal Tehsil Billawar, District Kathug
32 Naresh Kumar S/o Dewan Chand R/o VPO Plasi Tehsil Baohli
District Kathua
33 Subash Chander S/o Waryam Singh R/o Karndi PO Rajbagh
Tehsil Hiranagar District Kathua
34 Ram Krishan S/o Munshi Ram R/o Slore Tehsil Billawar
District Kathua
35 Bippen Kumar S/o Nek Chand R/o Dharralla PO Nagri Tehsil
and District Kathua
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 7 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
36 Kuldeep Singh S/O Kaka Ram R/o VPO Janglote Tehsil and
District Kathua
37 Nirmal Singh Pathania S/o Chanchal Singh Pathania R/o Plail
Tehsil Billawar District Kathua
38 Raj Kumar S/o Krishan Chand R/o Mandhera PO Naran Tehsil
Hiranagar District Kathua
39 Sanjeev kumar S/o Bhawani Singh R/o VPO Parole w.no. 5
Tehsil and District Kathua
40 Anil Sharma S/o Satpal Sharma R/o Lower Mela Tehsil
Hiranagar, District Kathua.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld.
DAG, Ms. Shivani Jalali, ld. counsel for private res.)
2. TA/165/2023
1. Pankaj Sharma, S/o Sh. Ved Parkash Sharma, Age 32 Years, R/o
Village Thara Kalwal, Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 8 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
2. Charan Dass, S/o Sh. Mani Ram, R/o Village Dambra, Tehsil
Billawar, District Kathua, Age 47 Years.
3. Bodh Raj, S/o Sh. Gian Chand, R/o Village Gujru Nagrota, Tehsil
Billawar, District Kathua, Age 39 Years.
4. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Lt. Sh. Gian Chand, R/o Village Dambra, Tehsil
Billawar, District Kathua, Age 40 Years.
5. Sahil Sharma, S/o Sh. Ved Parkash Sharma, R/o Village Thara
Kalwal, Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua, Age 30.. Years.
6. Radha Devi, D/o Tara Chand, R/o Village Salore, Gujru, Nagrota,
Age 35 Years.
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. V. Bhushan Gupta)
Versus
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary Govt.
of J&K General Administration Department, Srinagar.
2. Deputy Commissioner Kathua-Chairman District Level
Appointment Committee, Kathua.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 9 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
3. Hardeep Singh, S/o Sh. Krishan Singh, R/o Dollian Bari Brahmana,
Jammu.
4. Kamlesh Khajuria, W/o Madan Parkash, R/o Narsingh Colony
Ghagwal, Tehsil and District Samba.
5. Joginder Paul, S/o Kuldeep Raj, R/o Village Bakhae, Tehsil
Kalakot, District Rajouri.
6. Jatinder Sambiyal, S/o Sh. Suraj Singh, R/o Kotli Mandi Samba,
Tehsil and District Samba.
7. Gagandeep Kumar, S/o Sh. Sohan Lal, R/o Village Ranjri, Tehsil
Samba, District Samba.
8. Manmohan Singh, S/o Sh. Bishambhar Singh, R/o Village Sunall,
Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld.
DAG, Ms. Shivani Jalali, ld. counsel for private res
)
3.TA 451/2022
Pardeep Kumar
Age 29 Years
S/o Sh. Rattan Chand
R/o: Plail Tehsil Billawar District Kathua.
.... Applicant
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 10 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
(By Advocate: Mr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, Sr. Adv. along with Ms.
Damini Singh Chauhan)
VERSUS
1. State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary Government of
Jammu and Kahmir, General Administration Department (GAD),
Srinagar.
2. Deputy Commissioner Kathua-Chairman, District Level Classs-
IVth Appointment Committee, Kathua.
3. Raj Kumar S/o Krishan Chand R/o Mandhera P/o Naran Tehsil
Hiranagar district Kathua.
4. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Bhawani Singh R/o VPO Parole W.No.5 Tehsil
and District Kathua
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld.
DAG, Ms. Shivani Jalali, ld. counsel for private res
)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 11 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The SWP No. 2592/2013, 1803/2013 & 1644/2016 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022 respectively by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
1. TA/7548/2021 In is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to;
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that a writ of Certiorari may very kindly be issued by quashing the selection and appointment of private respondents as IVth Class Employees in various departments vide selection list published in news paper by Deputy Commissioner, Kathua vide his no. DIPJ-3076 dated 30.07.2013, on 31.07.2013.
And Further issuance of writ of Mandamus by commanding the official respondents to select and appoint the petitioners as IVth class employees in District Kathua Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioners.
2. TA/165/2023 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022 It is most humbly prayed that an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of Certiorari may very kindly be issued quashing the selection and appointment of private respondents. A Writ of Mandamus may also be kindly issued commanding the official respondents to select and appoint the petitioners as IVth Class Employees in District Kathua, with further direction to the official respondents that in case the overage of the petitioners 2,3,4 comes in the way of appointment of the petitioners 2,3,4 in that case that be got relaxed. Any other writ, direction or order which in the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court deems fit, the same be also granted in favour of the petitioners.
3. TA/451/2022 "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that a Writ of Certiorari may very kindly be issued by quashing the selection and appointment of private respondent as IVth Class Employees District Kathua vide selection list published in News paper by Deputy Commissioner, Kathua vide his No.DIPJ-3076 dated 30.07.2013, on 31.07.
And further issuance of Writ of Mandamus by commanding the official respondent to select and appoint the petitioner as IVth Class employees in District Kathua.
AND With a further prayer of an appropriate Writ, directions and order as deemed fit and proper in the nature and the circumstances of the case."
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
4. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present bunch of matters arises out of three writ petitions, namely SWP No. 2592/2013, SWP No. 1803/2013 and SWP No. 1644/2016, which, upon transfer from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, came to be registered as T.A. No. 7548/2021, T.A. No. 165/2023 and T.A. No. 451/2022 respectively before this Tribunal .
b) The grievance of all the applicants in the present batch pertains to the selection and appointment to Class-IV posts in District Kathua pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2006 dated 22.04.2006 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, who was functioning as Chairman of the District Level Class-IV Appointment Committee under Government Order No. 42-
GAD of 2006 dated 09.01.2006.
c) The said Government Order was issued in furtherance of Cabinet Decision dated 19.02.2005, whereby a mechanism was devised for filling up Class-IV posts on a fast-track basis. The order contemplated constitution of District Level Committees HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022 headed by the Deputy Commissioners and mandated that the recruitment process be completed within a period of three months. It also provided that, as far as possible, preference be given to candidates belonging to the local area where the posts were available.
d) In pursuance thereof, Advertisement Notice dated 22.04.2006 was issued inviting applications for Class-IV posts in various departments in District Kathua. The applicants, being permanent residents of District Kathua and possessing the requisite qualifications, applied within time and participated in the selection process. The minimum qualification prescribed was Middle pass, with Matric qualification required for certain departments, and higher qualifications were to be given due weightage.
e) The selection process involved interviews conducted between 11.12.2006 and January, 2007, wherein a large number of candidates, reportedly exceeding 20,000, participated. As per the applicants, the selection criteria allotted 50 marks for academic qualifications and 150 marks for interview/viva voce, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022 thereby giving overwhelming weightage to interview, which, according to them, rendered the process arbitrary and susceptible to manipulation.
f) It is the case of the applicants that the interviews were conducted in a casual and perfunctory manner, wherein multiple candidates were interviewed together and only routine questions were asked, thereby reducing the process to a mere formality. According to them, the excessive weightage assigned to viva voce enabled the selection committee to favour chosen candidates and disregard academic merit.
g) After completion of interviews in early 2007, no result was declared for several years. It is pleaded that although a select list was allegedly prepared in the year 2007, the same was neither published nor made public and remained undisclosed. The applicants assert that despite repeated representations, the authorities failed to publish the result within the stipulated time frame, thereby violating the mandate of the Government Order requiring completion of the process within three months.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
h) Subsequently, after an inordinate delay of more than six years, the respondents published the final selection/appointment list vide Notification dated 30.07.2013, published in the Daily Excelsior on 31.07.2013.
i) The applicants challenge the said selection primarily on the following grounds:
Firstly, it is contended that the selection process was vitiated by arbitrariness and favoritism, inasmuch as candidates with lower academic merit were selected while more meritorious candidates, including the applicants, were ignored.
Secondly, it is alleged that candidates belonging to districts other than Kathua were selected, contrary to the stipulation in the Government Order and advertisement notice requiring preference to local candidates. Thirdly, it is contended that the excessive allocation of 150 marks for interview as against 50 marks for academic qualification is wholly arbitrary and violative HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022 of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it enables manipulation of merit.
Fourthly, the applicants submit that the selection list was issued after an unexplained and inordinate delay of more than six years, thereby rendering the entire process illegal and arbitrary, particularly when the governing instructions required completion within a period of three months.
Fifthly, it is pleaded that the select list prepared in 2007 was never published or acted upon, and the eventual publication in 2013 lacks transparency and fairness. Sixthly, it is contended that several applicants became overage during the prolonged delay, thereby suffering prejudice on account of the inaction of the respondents. Seventhly, it is also alleged that the number of candidates selected in the open merit category was less than the notified vacancies, thereby further prejudicing the applicants.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
j) On these premises, the applicants seek quashing of the selection and appointment of private respondents and a direction to the official respondents to consider and appoint them against the said posts.
3. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) On merits, the respondents submit that the recruitment in question was conducted strictly in accordance with Government Order No. 42-GAD of 2006 dated 09.01.2006. It is stated that the said order envisaged filling up Class-IV posts partly for SRO-43 cases and partly through direct recruitment by a duly constituted selection committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner.
b) It is further submitted that the provision regarding preference to local candidates is not mandatory but only directory in nature, and such preference could be applied only in cases of equal merit. According to the respondents, merit could not be compromised solely on the basis of local residency.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 19 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
c) The respondents assert that the selection process was conducted
in a fair, transparent and unbiased manner, taking into account the overall merit of candidates, including their performance in the interview. It is contended that the criteria adopted, including assessment of personal suitability and efficiency through interview, was within the domain of the selection committee.
d) It is also submitted that the advertisement notice invited applications from candidates belonging to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and did not impose any absolute restriction on candidates from other districts.
e) The respondents further contend that the applicants have no vested right to appointment and only possess a right to be considered, which was duly accorded to them. However, they could not be selected as they failed to secure the requisite merit and did not meet the category-wise cut-off marks fixed by the selection committee.
f) It is specifically pleaded that the applicants cannot sit in judgment over the assessment made by the competent authority, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022 and the determination of merit is within the exclusive domain of the selection body.
g) The respondents also rely upon the category-wise cut-off merit points to contend that none of the applicants qualified for selection, and therefore, their non-selection is justified.
h) On these grounds, the respondents pray for dismissal of the present Transfer Applications as being devoid of merit.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. The present batch of Transfer Applications, namely T.A. No. 7548/2021, T.A. No. 165/2023 and T.A. No. 451/2022, arise out of a common selection process and involve identical questions of fact and law, and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.
6. The applicants call in question the selection and appointment to Class-
IV posts in District Kathua pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2006 dated 22.04.2006 issued under Government Order No. 42- GAD of 2006 dated 09.01.2006. It is not in dispute that all the applicants had applied pursuant to the said advertisement, participated in the selection process, appeared in the interviews conducted between HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 21 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022 December, 2006 and January, 2007 and only after publication of the select list in July, 2013 approached the Court challenging the same.
7. The challenge is essentially founded on allegations of arbitrariness in the selection process, excessive weightage to viva voce, selection of candidates from outside the district, delay in publication of the result and alleged non-selection of more meritorious candidates.
8. However, before adverting to the individual grounds, the foundational issue which strikes at the root of the matter is whether the applicants, having consciously and voluntarily participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the criteria, can be permitted to turn around and assail the very same process after being declared unsuccessful. The answer to this issue is no longer res integra.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, in unequivocal terms held that when a candidate takes part in a selection process and appears in the interview without protest, he cannot subsequently challenge the process after finding himself unsuccessful. The principle laid down is one of estoppel by conduct, preventing a candidate from approbating and reprobating.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 22 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
10. This position has been consistently reiterated in K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395, wherein it was held that a candidate who participates in a selection process knowing the procedure cannot thereafter question it merely because the result is not favourable. Similarly, in Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, it was held that such a challenge is impermissible once the candidate has taken a calculated chance and failed.
11. Further, in Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a candidate cannot challenge the criteria or procedure after having participated in the selection process, as it would amount to permitting him to "blow hot and cold".
12. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the applicants were fully aware of the selection criteria, including the allocation of marks between academic qualification and viva voce. They participated in the entire process without any demur or protest. Having taken a chance and failed, they cannot now be permitted to question the process.
13. The contention regarding excessive weightage to interview is equally untenable. The law on the subject, as laid down in Ashok Kumar HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022 Yadav vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417, does not prescribe any rigid or inflexible rule regarding the proportion of marks for viva voce. It depends upon the nature of the post and the scheme of recruitment. In the absence of any statutory violation, the allocation of marks cannot be interfered with merely because the applicants perceive it to be excessive. More importantly, having accepted the criteria and participated in the process, the applicants are estopped from raising this contention at this belated stage.
14. The argument that candidates from outside District Kathua were selected is also misconceived. The Government Order relied upon only provides that preference be given to local candidates "as far as possible". Such a stipulation is directory and not mandatory. It cannot be interpreted as an absolute bar against consideration of candidates from other districts. The respondents have rightly submitted that merit cannot be subordinated to local preference unless expressly mandated by rules.
15. The plea regarding delay in publication of the select list, though not satisfactorily explained by the respondents, does not by itself vitiate the selection in the absence of any material to show that the delay HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 24 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022 resulted in manipulation or arbitrariness. The applicants have not demonstrated any nexus between the delay and alleged illegality in the selection.
16. The further contention that less meritorious candidates were selected also does not merit acceptance. It is trite law that the Court or Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the decisions of expert selection committees. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, (1990) 1 SCC 305, it was held that the evaluation of merit lies within the exclusive domain of the selection committee and cannot be interfered with unless mala fides or patent illegality is established. No such material has been placed on record in the present case.
17. Courts should be slow in interfering with selections unless the process is shown to be arbitrary or violative of statutory provisions. The plea of overage on account of delay is also devoid of merit. The applicants, having failed to secure the requisite merit, cannot claim appointment on equitable considerations alone. Sympathy cannot override settled legal principles governing public employment.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 25 :: TA 7548/2021, 165/2023 & 451/2022
18. At a broader level, the challenge laid by the applicants is in the nature of a post-result grievance, arising solely because they could not succeed in the selection process. Permitting such challenges would not only unsettle concluded selections but would also erode the sanctity of recruitment processes conducted by duly constituted authorities.
19. Public employment must be governed by certainty, finality and adherence to rules. Once a candidate participates in a process with open eyes, he cannot be permitted to question it after failure, as such conduct strikes at the very root of fairness and discipline in recruitment.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the applicants have failed to make out any case warranting interference. The challenge is barred by the principles of estoppel and acquiescence, and is otherwise devoid of merit.
21. Accordingly, all the Transfer Applications are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV