Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
SINDHU SHARMA, RAHUL BHARTI, JJ.
J&K Public Service Commission Through its Secretary, Resham Ghar Colony,
Vs.
Dr. Rajeev Gupta, S/o Mohan Lal Gupta - Respondent
RP No. 87 OF 2022 in WP(C) No. 802 OF 2022
Decided On :
(A) Constitution of India - Article 315 - Judicial review - Writ petition seeking quashment of judgment by Central Administrative Tribunal regarding selection of Lecturer Super Specialty - Petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the judgment as it did not affect its legal rights - Review petition dismissed as misconceived. (Paras 6, 8, 14)
(B) Locus Standi - The petitioner must demonstrate a legal interest in the matter to challenge a decision - The absence of challenge by the affected party indicates lack of grievance. (Paras 6, 11)
(C) Review Jurisdiction - Review is not an appeal and cannot be used to re-agitate matters already decided - Error apparent on the face of the record must be shown for a successful review. (Paras 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission, sought to quash a judgment by the Central Administrative Tribunal that set aside the selection of a candidate for a lecturer position. The affected candidate did not challenge the Tribunal's decision.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner lacked the standing to challenge the Tribunal's judgment, as it did not affect its rights or involve any interpretation of its regulations.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's judgment and whether the review petition was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner, being a constitutional body, must demonstrate a legal interest in the matter to challenge the Tribunal's decision, and the absence of challenge by the affected party indicated a lack of grievance.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rahul Bharti, J.
01. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner – Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (“J&K PSC” in short).
02. The petitioner-J&K PSC came to prefer a writ petition WP(C) No. 802/2022 thereby seeking judicial review of a judgment dated 03.02.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT, Jammu Bench, Jammu in T. A. No. 61/6606/2020 titled “Dr. Rajeev Gupta Vs State of J&K and Others” and thereby sought quashment of said judgment.
03. Vide its said judgment dated 03.02.2022, the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT, Jammu Bench, Jammu while allowing a petition filed by Dr. Rajeev Gupta-the respondent No. 1 herein, came to set aside selection of Dr. Mohd Hussain Mir- the proforma respondent No. 5 herein, as Lecturer Super Specialty (Medical Oncology), Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Jammu and simultaneously directed the petitioner-J&K PSC as well as the State of Jammu & Kashmir to consider the candidature of the respondent No. 1 – Dr. Rajeev Gupta for the post of Lecturer, Super Specialty (Medical Oncology), Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Jammu.
04. Against said judgment dated 03.02.2022, the proforma respondent No. 5 – Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir, whose selection and prospective appointment suffered negation on account of the effect of the said judgment, chose not to challenge it by any mode much less by filing a writ petition. Even the Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir, which figured as the respondent No. 1 in the case before the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT, Jammu Bench, Jammu, had chosen not to challenge said judgment dated 03.02.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT, Jammu Bench, Jammu.
05. It is the petitioner – J&K PSC, purportedly acting through its Secretary, which came forward with the institution of a writ petition WP(C) No.802/2022 thereby seeking quashment of judgment dated 03.02.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT, Jammu Bench, Jammu.
06. Said writ petition came to be heard by this Bench and the same came to be dismissed in limine by virtue of a judgment dated 05.05.2022 holding the lack of locus-standi of the petitioner – J&K PSC to feel aggrieved of said judgment dated 03.02.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT, Jammu Bench, Jammu so as to challenge it in the manner as it was intended to be challenged in the context of the averments made in the writ petition.
07. This Court dealt with the very maintainability of the writ petition so filed by the petitioner – J&K PSC in the light of the fact that Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir, whose selection and recommendation for appointment was set aside did not come forward to salvage his impugned and quashed selection and recommendation for prospective appointment.
08. By reference to the averments as made in the writ petition sounding as if Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir was the writ petitioner, we had come to observe that there was no elementary level pleading as to the locus-standi of the petitioner – J&K PSC in assailing the said judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT Jammu Bench, Jammu which was not affecting or meaning to affect any legal/statutory/constitutional right and status of the petitioner - J&K PSC or for that matter involving no interpretation of any rule/regulation governing the working and functioning of the petitioner – J&K PSC in carrying out the selection process which resulted in the challenged selection of Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir.
09. It is against said judgment dated 05.05.2022 that the petitioner- J&K PSC came forward with the institution of present review petition filed on 07.06.2022 by coming up with the repeat of the averments as made in the writ petition with addition of new averments which otherwise were not there in the writ petition.
10. In its review petition, the petitioner – J&K PSC is meaning to defend the selection of Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir when he himself never felt aggrieved of upsetting of his selection by the judgment dated 03.02.2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT
A party must demonstrate locus standi to challenge a decision affecting its rights; absence of challenge by the affected party indicates lack of grievance.
The withdrawal of a selection process can be justified if it is not mala fide, arbitrary, or for ulterior considerations, and does not fall foul of constitutional provisions.
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not barred by the existence of an alternative remedy of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in exceptiona....
The High Court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 despite alternative remedies when natural justice is violated or extraordinary circumstances exist, emphasizing procedural integrity in publ....
A candidate must meet the established criteria and cut-off marks to be considered for appointment, and vacancies cannot provide an indefeasible right to appointment when the selection process is comp....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
