Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5774

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, B Anand, A
Jasmeet Kour Sudan – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K Through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. General Administration Department Civil Secretariat, J&K, Jammu – Respondent
O.A. No. 1521 of 2023 | O.A. No. 1530 of 2023 | O.A. No. 1541 of 2023 | O.A. No. 1580 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Adv, Ms. Saba Atiq
For the Respondents:Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Additional Advocate General, Mr. F A Natnoo for PSC, Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Adv, Mr. Aniruddha Sharma for Private respondents, Mr. Hunar Gupta, Deputy advocate General for R3

The court reinforced equality in public recruitment, mandating valid EWS certification should be recognized without regional bias, facilitating fair opportunity for all eligible candidates.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - 103rd Amendment - J&K Public Service Commission decision regarding EWS certification validity for appointments challenged - Applicants contended exclusion based on geographical identity violates equal opportunity principles - Tribunal stays notification concerning exclusion of EWS candidates - Emphasized consideration of applicants for appointment based on merit and valid certification. (Paras 1, 2, 14, 20)

(B) Reservation under J&K Reservation Act - Section 19 - Applicants argue their eligibility for EWS category benefits despite claimed association with reserved categories - Affirmed that certificate validity must align with adopted rules governing state jobs and appointments. (Paras 13, 19)

Facts of the case:
The applicants were shortlisted for medical exams under J&K PSC’s recruitment but later removed from the selection due to invalidation of their EWS certificates. They challenge the validity of this exclusion based on previous appointments made from the same districts under EWS.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal directed concerned authorities to ascertain if the applicants qualify under the fresh criteria for EWS and mandated the issuance of certificates accordingly.

Issues: The main issues addressed included the legality of denying EWS benefits based on administrative decisions and the legitimacy of their EWS certificates.

Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal reaffirmed principles of meritocracy in public appointments, emphasizing necessity for transparent integrative processes that uphold the rights of qualifying candidates regardless of regional biases.

Result: Conditions for reconsideration of applicants under EWS reservations were articulated and enforced by the Tribunal.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Tribunal disposed of four O.As (1521/2023, 1530/2023, 1541/2023, 1580/2023) by common order due to similar issues involving EWS eligibility in J&K PSC's CCE-2022 recruitment (!) (!) . - Applicants were shortlisted, qualified exams, and called for medicals but excluded from final selection due to EWS certificates deemed valid only for Central jobs, with regional exclusions for Poonch/Rajouri districts (!) (!) . - EWS certificates for Central jobs follow Annexure-A to Circular 19-GAD/2019, while UT J&K requires Form XIV-A per SRO 518/2019; reserved category persons (SC/ST/SEBC) ineligible for EWS (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Applicants argued no prior reserved category certificates (PSP/RBA) and past appointments of similar candidates from same districts under EWS; Tribunal rejected parity with potential past wrongs (!) (!) (!) . - Tribunal stayed exclusion notices earlier and found respondents should have allowed applicants chance to furnish fresh UT EWS certificates or Tehsildar clarifications, as done in other cases (!) (!) . - Directions issued: Tehsildars to verify no prior reserved benefits and issue UT EWS certificates if eligible within one month; if obtained, appoint applicants within next month, else proceed with next candidates (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Section 19 J&K Reservation Act allows choice of one category only if belonging to multiple (!) (!) . - Emphasized meritocracy, equality, and no regional bias in recognizing valid EWS certifications [p_2 intro summary] (!) .

What is the validity of EWS certificates issued for Central Government jobs in UT of J&K recruitment?

What are the eligibility criteria for claiming EWS benefits under J&K Reservation Rules?

How to address invalid EWS certificates in public service recruitment?

Table of Content
1. common issues of ews eligibility and merit-based selection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. the challenge on grounds of regional discrimination in merit-based appointments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. provisions for reconsideration based on valid certificates and prompt action mandated. (Para 19 , 20)
4. final disposition of applications with directives to reconsider based on compliance with ews criteria. (Para 21)

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member-J)

1. Since, the issue involved in O.A. No. 1521 of 2023, O.A. No. 1530 of 2023, O.A. No. 1541 of 2023 and O.A. No. 1580 of 2023 are similar, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The applicants Jasmeet Kour Sudan, Arun Singh, Mohd Ajaz and Muzzaffar Ahmad Khanday are aggrieved of the impugned decision of the extra ordinary meeting of the J&K PSC (Agenda item No. 1. 2201) dated 12.10.2023 notified vide Notice dated 07.11.2023 to the extent, it was decided in the said meeting that the EWS certificate of the applicants (and others whose names are figuring in the first table of the said notice dated 07.11.2023) cannot be considered for appointment for the posts of J&K Competitive Examination- 2022 in the UT of J&K on the ground that that the certificate possessed by the applicants is valid for Central Government jobs only. The applicants are also aggrieved of the impugned Notification No. PSC/Exam/S/2023/85 dated 15.11.2023, whereby and where under, the private respondents who belong to EWS category have been directed to report for Medical Examination before Medical Board, so that if found medically fit, they shall replace the applicants and other figuring in the first table of the above referred notice dated 07.11.2023, even though all the private respondents are having less merit than the applicants. The applicants are also aggrieved of impugned Notice No. GAD- SERV0KAS/575/2021 dated 25.10.2023, issued by the GAD, to the extent of the exclusion of the name of the applicants from list of those recommended for appointment to the posts in CCE-2022.

3. The brief facts projected by the applicants are that the vide notification No. 08-PSC (DR-P) of 2022 dated 19.04.2022, applications through online mode were invited from applicants, who are domiciled in the UT of J&K, for appearing in the J&K Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination 2022. The said recruitment was to be conducted by Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (J&K PSC). Out of total 220 posts, 22 posts were reserved for EWS category candidates. It is stated in the O.As that the applicants belong to the EWS category and had accordingly participated in the selection process viz Preliminary Examination, Mains Examination and interview, pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement and also qualified the same. Thereafter, the applicants were also called for Medical Examination vide notification No. PSC/Exam/2023/5/37 dated 22.08.2023. However, to the utter surprise of the applicants in the final selection list, the name of the applicants was missing. Upon enquiry, the applicant- Jasmeet Kour Sudan found out that since she belonged to Poonch District, wherein majority of residents belong to the category of ‘Pahari Speaking People’, it had been decided by the Government not to appoint any candidate belonging to Poonch and Rajouri District under EWS category. Similarly, applicants – Arun Singh, Mohd Ajaz and Muzaffar Ahmad Khanday came to know that since they belong to the backward area, therefore, they were not eligible for appointment under the EWS category. The grievance of the applicants is that in spite of their selection, the applicants have not been granted appointment and on the other hand, the respondents intend to appoint some candidates (private respondents in the O.As), who have secured less marks than the applicants.

4. Being aggrieved, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by filing these O.As. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking quashment of dec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document