Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, MEMBER (J), Ram Mohan Johri, MEMBER (A)
Bilal Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
Original Application No. 714/2024
(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21 - Service Law - Recruitment and Appointment - Police Service - Character and Antecedents Verification - Judicial Review - Selection does not confer indefeasible right to appointment if subject to satisfactory verification - The selection was subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents; the CID Wing found the applicant not suitable due to his brother's militant background and assessed his susceptibility to coercion; the court held that in a disciplined force, a higher standard of suitability and trustworthiness is required and that judicial review in such security matters is limited. (Paras 12, 13, 18, 19, 29)
(B) Service Law - Appointment - Verification of Antecedents - The appointing authority is entitled to consider overall suitability, antecedents, security implications, and public interest, and mere absence of a criminal case is not sufficient for appointment to a sensitive post. (Para 27)
(C) Judicial Review - Scope - In matters involving security assessment for appointment in a disciplined force, a court or tribunal cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the competent agency, unless the decision is mala fide, arbitrary, or based on no material. (Paras 19, 28)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, having been selected by the Service Selection Board for the post of Sub Inspector in the Police Department under the RBA category, was denied appointment based on an adverse character and antecedents verification report. The report indicated that his brother had been a militant who was killed in an encounter, leading the Review Committee to find the applicant not suitable for appointment due to his potential susceptibility to inducement or coercion by terrorists. The applicant argued that he could not be penalized for his brother's acts and that there were no adverse personal records against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's selection did not grant him an indefeasible right to appointment, as it was expressly subject to satisfactory character and antecedents verification. The respondents' decision to withhold the appointment based on the adverse report from the CID Wing was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or illegal. The court held that it could not substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority in matters of suitability for a disciplined police force, especially in a region with significant security concerns.
Issues: The main issues were whether a selected candidate has an absolute right to appointment when the selection is subject to antecedent verification, and whether the adverse verification report relating to a family member can lawfully be the basis for denying public employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a candidate in a select list does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment if the appointment is subject to conditions like character and antecedents verification. For a disciplined force like the police, the employer is entitled to a higher degree of confidence and satisfaction regarding a candidate's reliability and suitability, and a court cannot reassess a security agency's assessment unless it is shown to be mala fide, arbitrary, or based on no material.
Result : Original Application dismissed. Interim order vacated. No order as to costs.
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) In view of the facts stated in para 4 supra and legal grounds urged in para 5 of this OA and those to be urged at the time of the hearing, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may very graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as Sub Inspector, J&K Police under RBA category in reference to his selection in furtherance of Final Select List issued by the J&K Service Selection Board notification no.01-Selecton of 2024 respondent no. 6 vide dated 08.01.2024 and recommendations made by respondent no.6 in favour of the applicant without finding fault with the character verification report of the applicant, w.e.f. the date similarly situated incumbents who have been selected along with the applicant have been appointed and grant him all retrospective consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, allowances, seniority, etc.”
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicant, namely Bilal Ahmad, has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Sub Inspector, J&K Police, under the RBA category, pursuant to his selection in the final select list issued by the J&K Service Selection Board vide Notification No. 01- Selection of 2024 dated 08.01.2024, with all consequential benefits including seniority, salary, allowances and other service benefits from the date similarly situated selected candidates were appointed.
b) The case of the applicant is that the J&K Service Selection Board, on the basis of requisition received from the Home Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, issued Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2021 dated 21.10.2021, inviting applications for 800 UT Cadre posts of Sub Inspectors in J&K Police under different categories. Subsequently, by another notification dated 24.11.2021, the number of advertised posts was increased from 800 to 1200, including 120 posts under the RBA category.
c) The applicant claims that he was fully eligible and qualified in terms of the advertisement notification and, accordingly, applied for the post of Sub Inspector under the RBA category. He participated in the selection process, appeared in the written examination, and after qualifying the same, was called for the Physical Standard Test and Physical Endurance Test. The applicant asserts that he successfully qualified all stages of the selection process.
d) It is further pleaded that after completion of the selection process, the J&K Service Selection Board issued the final select list vide Notification No. 01-Selection of 2024 dated 08.01.2024, wherein the applicant was declared selected against the UT Cadre post of Sub Inspector under the RBA category. His name figures at Serial No. 60 in the RBA category.
e) The applicant states that after issuance of the final select list, the Service Selection Board recommended the names of selected candidates to the Home Department, which in turn forwarded the recommendations to the Director General of Police, J&K, for issuance of appointment orders. The recommendations were thereafter forwarded to the concerned Senior Superintendents of Police for necessary action and issuance of appointment orders.
f) According to the applicant, the candidates belonging to District Doda were to be issued appointment orders by the concerned authority. Since the applicant also belongs to District Doda, his name was also forwarded for issuance of appointment order. However, while appointment orders were issued in favour of other selected candidates, the appointment order in favour of the applicant was not issued.
g) The applicant contends that on enquiry, he came to know that his police/CID verification
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
