Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1185
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
Kanika Mahajan – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 3361/2020|SWP No.2726/2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. H.C.Jailmeria
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG, Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Ld. AAG
Selection processes must be transparent with disclosed marks and effective weightage to promised higher qualifications preference; opacity and arbitrariness violate Articles 14/16, warranting reconsideration for unfilled vacancies without disturbing appointees.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 - Service law - Recruitment process - Transparency and fairness - Selection for public posts must be fair, transparent, and free from arbitrariness - Candidate has right to fair consideration though no vested right to appointment - Marks in written test and viva voce must be disclosed in mass recruitment to ensure transparency - Preference to higher qualifications in advertisement implies effective weightage, not illusory consideration, especially for specialized profession like teaching - Non-disclosure of marks, ignoring preference, and leaving posts unfilled renders process opaque and arbitrary (Paras 12-17)
(B) Judicial review - Scope - Tribunal cannot act as appellate authority over expert selection body unless patent illegality or arbitrariness established - Estoppel does not bar challenge to process if arbitrariness or deviation from norms demonstrated, particularly with unfilled vacancies (Paras 10, 17-18)
Facts of the case:
Applicants, highly qualified with post-graduate degrees and professional teaching qualifications, challenged selection list for teacher posts under district cadre notifications prescribing 10+2 minimum but preference to higher qualifications including B.Ed./M.Ed. They qualified written test and interview but were not selected, while lower qualified candidates were recommended. Final select list lacked marks disclosure, category-wise merit, and many posts remained unfilled or withheld.
Findings of Court:
Selection process suffered from opacity and defeated promised preference to higher qualifications. Respondents directed to reconsider applicants' cases for available vacancies including unfilled posts and withheld recommendations, giving due weightage to superior qualifications, without disturbing existing appointees.
Issues: Whether selection process was arbitrary and non-transparent; whether preference to higher qualified candidates was rendered nugatory.
Ratio Decidendi: In recruitment, advertisements promising preference to higher qualifications must provide effective weightage; opacity in marks disclosure and selection undermines fairness under Articles 14 and 16; relief can be granted for unfilled vacancies without unsettling existing selections.
Result: Transfer Application allowed with directions for reconsideration within three months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties to the transfer application identified (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners' qualifications superior; selections opaque (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. respondents: process fair, no right to appointment (Para 4) |
| 4. selection must be transparent, non-arbitrary (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. higher qualifications merit effective preference (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. estoppel inapplicable; balance relief pragmatically (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. reconsider petitioners for vacant posts (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.2726/2015 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.3361/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -
“ CERTIORARI Quashing the selection of the respondent nos. 5-45 made by the respondent no. 2 for the post of teachers in District Cadre Kathua against item no. 483 in furtherance of the Notification no. 05 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013 and against item no. 484 in furtherance of the Notification no. 06 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013 ignoring better merit and claim of the petitioners, violating the principles of equality as provided under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution, the provisions of Articles 21 of the Constitution, without following fair procedure established by law and having adopted unfair, unreasonable, illogical and opaque and not uniform criteria.
MANDAMUS
Commanding upon the official respondents to declare the petitioners selected as teachers to the District Cadre Kathua and to appoint them as such with all benefits. Any other writ, order or direction, appropriate in the circumstances, may also be issued in favour of the petitioners as against the respondents.?
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
a) The applicants, sixteen in number, are permanent residents of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and citizens of India. They possess the requisite eligibility for appointment to the post of Teacher (District Cadre Kathua) and are mostly highly qualified candidates, holding Post-Graduate degrees along with professional teaching qualifications such as B.Ed. and M.Ed. Several applicants have also acquired additional academic attainments including M.Phil., NET and Ph.D. reflecting specialized training and aptitude for the teaching profession.
b) The grievance of the applicants arises out of a common selection process initiated by the Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB) pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 03 of 2012 dated 28.12.2012, Notification No. 05 of 2013 dated 02.03.2013, and Notification No. 06 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013, whereby a substantial number of posts of Teachers were advertised for District Kathua under different categories.
c) Under Advertisement Notification No. 05 of 2013, 499 posts were notified for District Kathua, while under Notification No. 06 of 2013, 223 posts were advertised. Earlier, under Notification No. 03 of 2012, 19 posts of Teachers were also advertised for the same district. The minimum qualification prescribed was 10+2, with a clear stipulation that preference would be given to candidates possessing higher qualifications, including B.Ed., M.Ed., ETT/NTT and other higher academic credentials.
d) The applicants, being fully eligible and better qualified than many other candidates, applied under the relevant notifications, appeared in the written/screening test conducted on 14.09.2013, and were subsequently called for viva voce/interview. However, when the final select list was published in September 2015, the applicants were shocked to find that they were not selected, whereas several private respondents—many of whom possessed only Graduation or even mere 10+2 qualification, without any professional teaching degree—were recommended for appointment.
e) It is the categorical case of the applicants that:
• The marks obtained in the written tes
