Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Ram Mohan Johri, JJ
Harshit Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 6176/2021 | SWP/WP(C) No. 1898/2011
(A) Relevant laws and sections cited: "This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking, inter alia, the quashing of Notification No. PSC/EXAM-11/25 dated 10-02-2011 ... and for challenging the validity of Rule 8(4) and 8(5) of the J&K Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 notified vide SRO No. 387 dated 01.12.2008 as ultra-virus to Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India"; Rule 8 of SRO 387 of 2008; Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 6, 7, 11, 12, 21)
(B) Key legal principles or points of law discussed: "It is a well-settled principle of law that a candidate who participates in a selection process without demur and fails to secure selection cannot turn around to challenge the rules or the process" (Para 14); "Having participated in all stages ... Such conduct amounts to approbation and reprobation simultaneously" (Para 19); "Issue (ii): The Commission acted in accordance with Rule 8 of SRO 387 of 2008 which permits it to fix minimum qualifying marks for the Main Examination and shortlisting for interview. The object of such a rule is to ensure manageable and effective conduct of the interview process" (Paras 21); "Issue (iii): No credible material is placed on record to support the allegations of favoritism, irregular viva voce marks, or conflict of interest" (Para 22); final conclusion: "This Court finds no merit in the present writ petition" and the relief sought is denied (Para 23-24).
(C) Important facts of the case (facts quoted where key principles discussed): "The petitioners appeared in the Jammu & Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination, 2009, and secured 990 and 964 marks respectively out of 1950 in the Preliminary and Main Written Examinations. Despite their meritorious performance, they were awarded disproportionately low marks in the viva voce — 120 and 60 out of 250 — which led to their exclusion from the final selection list"; "A Committee of Officers and a Committee of Hon’ble Members ... shortlisted 1,233 candidates for the interview in a 1:3 ratio"; "The final select list of 302 candidates was issued vide Notification No. PSC/EXAM/1143 dated 25.03.2011"; "The result declaration and subsequent recruitment actions were challenged by the petitioners in late 2011". (Paras 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 6)
(D) Main issues addressed by the court (how the court frames these issues): "Issues for Determination (i) Whether the petitioners can be permitted to challenge the selection process after having fully participated in all its stages? (ii) Whether the rules permitting shortlisting and fixation of qualifying marks for interview are arbitrary or unconstitutional? (iii) Whether any procedural irregularities or mala fide are established by the petitioners?" (Para 13) (E) Findings and reasoning (ratio decidendi): "In the present case, the petitioners were aware of the entire selection mechanism ... participated in all stages. Their grievance arose only after failing to secure a place in the final select list. Such conduct amounts to approbation and reprobation simultaneously and cannot be countenanced" (Para 19). "Issue (ii): The Commission acted in accordance with Rule 8 of SRO 387 of 2008 which permits it to fix minimum qualifying marks for the Main Examination and shortlisting for interview. The object of such a rule is to ensure manageable and effective conduct of the interview process" (Para 21). "Issue (iii): No credible material is placed on record to support the allegations of favoritism, irregular viva voce marks, or conflict of interest" (Para 22). The court also records the settled legal position that participation in selection, knowing the rules, bars later challenge, and that delay in filing strengthens dismissal (Para 14, 16-20). (F) The final decision or result of the case (exact wording): "This Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. The petitioners, having voluntarily participated in the selection process and failed to secure merit, cannot now be allowed to assail the very process they accepted. The settled legal position and appointments made pursuant to the impugned result cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than 15 years. No violation of any constitutional or statutory provision is made out. The challenge to Rule 8(4) and (5) is also devoid of substance. This writ petition/TA is dismissed." (Paras 23-24)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background of challenge (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 2. petitioners' contentions about fairness and merit (Para 11) |
| 3. court's analysis: estoppel, merit criteria, and review of process (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. conclusion and disposition (petition dismissed; no costs) (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 1898/2011 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/6176/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:
a) allow the present writ petition;
b) quash Notification No. PSC/Exm-11/25 dated 10-02-2011 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby and where under the result of the successful candidates who appeared in the J&K Combined Competitive Examination, 2009 was declared as Annexures I & II thereto and the selected candidates were directed to report before the Standing Medical Board at Govt. Medical College Jammu/ Srinagar for Medical Examination.
c) quash and declare Sub-Rule 4 & 5 of Rule 8 of J&K Combined Competitive Examination, Rules, 2008 notified vide SRO No. 387 dated 01.12.2008 as ultra-virus to Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India and for quashing the same;
d) Direct official respondents to constitute an Expert Committee under the supervision of the Hon'ble Court to examine the entire record of the Written /Main Examination and the marks allotted in Viva Voce test of J&K Combined Competitive Examination, 2009, so as to verify the errors in coding and decoding / serious discrepancies and the malpractice, fraud committed by the Public Service Commission in the process of selection and preparation of the final selection list issued vide impugned Notification dated 10-02-2011.
e) command and direct the respondents No. 3 produce the record of J&K Combined Competitive Examinations, 2009 pertaining to those candidates who had opted Urdu as Optional subject, scrutiny of the Hon'ble Court so as to ascertain the fact, as to how many of those candidates who had opted Urdu as Optional subject had been finally selected and also to disclosed the marks secured by such candidates in their written Examination and in their comparative marks in Viva Voce;
f) Command and direct the official respondents to produce the answer sheets of petitioner No. 1 of General Studies Papers I & II, Psychology paper I & Psychology paper II for the scrutiny of the Hon'ble Court, so as to ascertain the circumstances under which have petitioner to No. 1 is shown secured very less marks in Psychology paper- I despite the fact the petitioner No. 1 being topper in Psychology subject in the Preliminary examination was expecting almost 200 marks in that subject.
g) Command and direct respondents No. 3 to produce the answer Books /sheets of General Studies Papers I & II and of Zoology papers I & II in the written examination of J&K Combined Competitive Examinations, 2009 of petitioner No. 2 for scrutiny of the Hon'ble Court so as to ascertain the fact, whether petitioner No. 2 was awarded less checking, marks in these papers due to mistakes int coding and decoding and also to ascertain whether all the continuation sheets of the petitioner No. 2 are intact.
h) Command and direct the respondents- Commission to produce the entire record of all those selected candidates who have been awarded more than 120 marks out of 250 in the Viva Voce Test, in order to ascertain the apprehension of the petitioners that those who had secured comparatively less marks in the Written Examination have been awarded unduly more marks in the viva Voce test on the basis of their family connections and not on the basis of their performance in viva voce.
i) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted in favour of the petitioner and a
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
