Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1603
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, A
Ramandeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
D/o Education Ut Of J & K – Respondent
T.A./7492/2021
Mr. Z A Mughal, Mr. Sudesh Magotra, learned A.A.G.
Participation in a selection process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, and absence of a waiting list renders claims for appointment unenforceable.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Recruitment process for Class-IV posts - Allegations of manipulation and favoritism in selection process - Petitioners claimed non-selection despite merit due to alleged irregularities and absence of a waiting list - Respondents contended that no legal rights were violated and the selection was conducted transparently. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 15)
(B) Right to appointment - Mere participation in selection process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment - Judicial review limited to ensuring non-arbitrariness in the selection process. (Paras 6, 10, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners applied for Class-IV posts in the Education Department, were shortlisted, but excluded from the final select list. They alleged manipulation in the selection process favoring certain candidates and claimed a right to appointment due to non-joining of selected candidates. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioners' claims, stating that mere participation does not create an absolute right to appointment, and the absence of a waiting list rendered their claims unenforceable. (Paras 15, 16)
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioners had a right to appointment despite non-selection and the validity of the selection process. (Paras 6, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that participation in a selection process does not guarantee a right to appointment, and the absence of a waiting list does not confer enforceable rights. (Paras 6, 10, 15)
Result: The TA is dismissed.
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 3171/2021 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/7492/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:
a) “WRIT OF CERTIORARI so as to set-aside and quash the selection and appointment of private respondent after calling the record of the same from the respondent no. 3 and 4 and keeping in view the malafide process of selection by the respondent no. 3 the whole of the selection made vide select list issued by the respondent no. 3 vide his No. DIP/J-3438 dated 17.08.2014 ( Annexure-D) may also be set-aside and quashed in the interest of justice.
b) Writ of mandamus; So, as to command and direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioners as class-IV in District Jammu in view of the selection process initiated vide Advertisement notice no. 1 of 2010 ( Annexure-A) with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. AND
c) Any other writ Order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.”
3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioners in their pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The case involves recruitment for Class-IV posts in the Education Department of District Jammu, where Respondent No. 3 issued Advertisement Notice No. 1 of 2010 published in the Daily Excelsior on 19.10.2010. This advertisement invited applications from permanent residents of District Jammu following Government Order No. 735-GAD of 2008 and Government Order No. 598 of Edu of 2010. The petitioners, both 10+2 qualified, applied for the said vacancies, and their merit was reflected in the shortlist published on 03.11.2012. The petitioners were placed at Serial Nos. 23 and 37 with scores of 64.31 and 64.36 points respectively.
b) Respondent No. 3 subsequently issued an interview notification on 24.12.2012, placing the petitioners at Serial Nos. 24 and 22 in the interview list, with the interview scheduled for 27.12.2012. Despite securing adequate scores, the petitioners found their names missing from the final select list issued after a delay of one year and eight months. The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 3 manipulated the selection process by awarding higher interview marks to certain candidates with lower academic scores. For instance, private respondent Heetu Khokhar had 55.78 academic points and secured 12.25 points in the interview, while Reena Bazal had 55.83 academic points with 13 interview points. Both were included in the open merit category, raising allegations of bias and favoritism.
c) The petitioners claimed that Respondent No. 3 manipulated the selection process to benefit candidates from a particular caste by awarding disproportionate interview marks to SC candidates who were subsequently included in the open merit category. Allegations of monetary considerations were also raised, with the Vigilance Commission seizing the selection record following complaints from non-selected candidates. The petitioners further claimed that Respondent No. 3's actions were arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional.
d) Under the open merit category, Respondent No. 3 issued a notification dated 11.10.2014, published in the Daily Excelsior on 12.10.2014, calling upon selected candidates to report for appointment by 20.10.2014. However, none of the selected candidates reported, which reinforced the petitioners’ claim that the selection process was unfair and irregular.
e) Additionally, Respondent No. 3 committed gross illegality and irregularity by failing to issue a waiting list as required by law. For the 62 vacancies under the open merit category, a waiting list of 12 candidates should have been prepared as per the 5:1 ratio guideline, but Respondent No. 3 failed to do so. The absence of a
