Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2973

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
Kovid Khosla – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 2068/2020 (SWP No. 1492/2017)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vishal Sharma, Ms. Shailja Bakshi
For the Respondents:Mr. Hunar Gupta, Deputy Advocate General

Court orders for re-evaluation due to defective exam questions apply in rem to all similarly situated candidates; selective implementation favouring lower-merit over higher-merit violates equality, mandating uniform benefits regardless of delay.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment process - Written examination with defective questions - High Court directed deletion of 23 questions and re-evaluation of all candidates' performance as if comprising 97 questions, preparation of category-wise merit list, and redrawing select list (Para 17). Such judgment operates in rem, binding authorities to extend benefits to all similarly situated candidates, not limited to original petitioners (Paras 18, 20, 21).

(B) Constitutional Law - Articles 14 and 16 - Equality in public employment - Selective implementation of court directions favouring lower-scoring candidates over higher-merit ones amounts to arbitrary discrimination; authorities cannot adopt pick-and-choose approach in re-evaluation benefits (Paras 18, 19).

(C) Administrative Law - Quasi-judicial orders - Rejection of claim must be reasoned, cogent, and non-arbitrary; non-speaking orders lacking application of mind liable to be quashed (Paras 23, 24).

(D) Service Jurisprudence - Similarly situated persons - Delay/laches no bar where recurring wrong exists and claimant pursued remedy promptly post-judgment; fence-sitter exception inapplicable to judgments in rem (Paras 16, 18, 21).

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, participant in recruitment written exam for post under direct quota, challenged rejection order post re-evaluation directed by court due to defective questions. Original writ petitioners secured appointments despite low revised scores (0 to 69.44%), while petitioner's higher merit ignored on grounds of delay and non-participation in challenge. Subsequent appointments to other similar candidates also noted.

Findings of Court:
Impugned rejection order quashed; petitioner directed to be appointed as per re-evaluated merit with consequential benefits including seniority, matching those granted to original writ petitioners and others similarly placed, within four weeks.

Issues: (i) Whether delay/laches bars claim or renders claimant fence-sitter; (ii) Whether merit can be disregarded; (iii) Validity of unreasoned rejection vis-à-vis court direction for universal re-evaluation (Para 16).

Ratio Decidendi: Court judgments directing re-evaluation apply to all candidates, prohibiting discriminatory selective application; equality mandates uniform treatment for similarly situated, overriding delay where no acquiescence; quasi-judicial decisions require reasoned orders (Paras 18-24).

Result: Transfer Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's rejection for naib-tehsildar appointment after flawed exam. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. court ordered deletion of 23 faulty questions and merit re-evaluation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 17)
3. petitioner's prior writ directed similar consideration as lead case. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. parties argue similarity, delay, and selective implementation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 19)
5. judgment in rem requires equal treatment for all candidates. (Para 15 , 16 , 18)
6. similarly situated candidates entitled to identical relief. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
7. quasi-judicial orders must provide reasoned decisions. (Para 23 , 24)
8. quash rejection order and direct appointment with benefits. (Para 25 , 26)

O R D E R

(Delivered byHon’bleMr. RajinderSDogra,Member-J)

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the Government Order No.175-Rev of 2016 dated 06-12-2016 issued by the respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the applicant for his appointment as Naib-Tehsildar has been considered and rejected.

2. Initially, the applicant has approached the Hon’ble HighCourt by filing SWP No. 1492/2017, which was subsequently transferred by the Hon’ble High Court to this Tribunal vide Order dated 04.08.2020 pursuant to which the same was registered as T.A. No. 61/2068/2020.

3. The brief facts of the case as projected by the learned counsel for the applicant is that in pursuance to the advertisement notice No. 4 of 2008, applications were invited by the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board (JKSSB) for the post of Naib-Tehsildar. The petitioner being fully eligible for the same applied in response to advertisement notice No. 04 of 2008.

4. Pursuant to same, the applicant being eligible was issued roll numbers for appearing in the written examination, whereafter the respondent Board has to conduct the interviews of the successful candidates in the written examination. Accordingly, the applicant appeared in the said written examination on the schedule date on 22.02.2009. The question paper contained objective type (multiple choice) questions and for every question four answers were given. During the course of examination, the applicant found that some questions given in the question booklet are wrong and some questions are vague. More than 20 questions of the said question booklet were wrong and contradictory with the answers given in the standard books, on the basis of which, the said examination was liable to be quashed.

5. Aggrieved by this action of the Board, 7 candidates filedSWP No. 487/2009 titled ‘Hamidullah Dar and others V/s State of J&K and others’ in Srinagar Bench of the Hon’ble High Court and the said writ petition was allowed by the Hon’ble Court directing the JKSSB to delete 23 questions from the question paper and thereafter re- assess and evaluate the performance of petitioners, as if the question paper comprised of 97 questions only and further directed the JKSSB to prepare category wise merit list, redraw the select list and recommend the candidates on the basis of merit for appointment as Naib-Tehsildar.

6. The applicant in the petition has submitted that the JKSSB at one point of time decided not to undertake the exercise of re-evaluation, as is evident from the minutes of meeting dated 10.03.2015. It is only after filing of contempt petition bearing COA SW No. 733/2015 titled Hamidullah Dar and others V/s Mr. Mohammad Afzal Bhat and ors in SWP No. 487/2009,wherein the Hon’ble Court directed the respondents to comply the Judgment and as a result of the said direction, respondent Board re-assessed the merit of the candidates and found that the Performa respondents could not secure the merit above the cut off points. However, the Hon’ble Court in terms of order dated 02.08.2016 passed in contempt petition No. 733/2015 titled Hamidullah Dar and ors V/s Mr. Mohammad Afzal Bhat and ors directed the respondent authorities to issue appointment orders in favour of petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order an LPA bearing LPA (Cont) No.144/2016 titled Mis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2973

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative MemberKovid Khosla – AppellantVersusState of Jammu & Kashmir – RespondentTransfer Application No. 2068/2020 (SWP No. 1492/2017)

Court orders for re-evaluation due to defective exam questions apply in rem to all similarly situated candidates; selective implementation favouring lower-merit over higher-merit violates equality, mandating uniform benefits regardless of delay.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
Kovid Khosla – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 2068/2020 (SWP No. 1492/2017)