JUDGMENT :

1. The cancellation of selection of the petitioner as General Line Teacher, District Cadre, Jammu under RBA Category in terms of Order No. 1364-SSB-2016 dated 16.11.2016 issued by respondent No. 4 is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

2. Before proceeding to deal with the grounds of challenge to the impugned order urged in this petition, it would be necessary to briefly notice some relevant facts.

3. Respondent No. 4 vide its advertisement notification No. 06/2013 dated 10.05.2013, invited applications from the eligible candidates, inter-alia, for the post of Teacher, District Cadre, Jammu. The petitioner, who claims to be a Graduate having done his B.A from Vinayaka Mission University through distance mode in the year, 2011-12, applied for the post aforesaid. The petitioner had also sought consideration under the reserved category of RBA. The petitioner participated in the selection process, which included viva-voce test also. The select list was issued by respondent No. 4 and the same came to be published in the newspaper “Daily Excelsior” in its edition dated 02.10.2015. The select list, however, indicated that the recommendation of a candidate, who as per his merit in the RBA category is placed at serial No. 92, was kept withheld for want of bonafide certificate of Graduation. The petitioner’s claim, which is also admitted by the respondents, is that it was the petitioner, who by virtue of his merit was placed at serial No. 92 of the RBA list but his recommendation was withheld for want of bonafide certificate of Graduation.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 vide its notification dated 19.09.2016 called upon the candidates including the petitioner to submit documents/clarifications mentioned against each in the select list in terms of Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012. The petitioner, in the aforesaid notification is listed at serial No. 9. The petitioner along with other similarly situated 08 candidates were, however, afforded only 05 days’ time to do the needful. The petitioner claims that he immediately took up the matter with the concerned University and got the bonafide certificate as was requisitioned by respondent No. 4. He states that bonafide certificate was submitted to respondent No. 4 on 18.10.2016 against receipt No. 7936. Respondent No. 4, however, vide impugned order dated 16.11.2016 cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to submit the requisite bonafide certificate within the stipulated period.

5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner challenges the impugned notification, inter-alia, on the ground that respondent No. 4 neither in the advertisement notification nor by any subsequent notification ever demanded bonafide certificates from the candidates who had passed their qualifications from outside Universities through distance mode. It was only after the select list was published, the recommendation of the petitioner was withheld and by a subsequent notification issued on 19.09.2016, only 05 days’ time was given to get the requisite bonafide certificate from the concerned University. The petitioner, therefore, submits that adequate opportunity to produce the bonafide certificate was not given. He made out all efforts to get the bonafide certificate from the concerned University at the earliest but the process took some time and ultimately he submitted the bonafide certificate on 18.10.2016 but the respondents, without any reason or justification, cancelled the candidature of the petitioner. It is, thus, submitted that the order impugned is totally irrational and arbitrary and, therefore, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

6. Respondent Board has filed reply affidavit refuting the claim of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that in view of his merit in the selection, he was placed at serial No. 92 as against the RBA category is admitted by the respondent-Board. However