Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6549

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, MEMBER (J), Ram Mohan Johri, MEMBER (A)
Fiaz Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 2546/2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Adv
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Thappa, ld. AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld. DAG

In public recruitment, selection must adhere strictly to the notified criteria. Higher educational qualification does not confer a preferential right over candidates who obtain higher marks in the written examination. Participation in a selection process estops a candidate from challenging the procedure after being unsuccessful.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Recruitment - Selection process - Judicial review - Scope limited to illegality, mala fide or patent arbitrariness. (Paras 37, 39)

(B) Service law - Selection for the post of Constable - Merit determined by marks in written examination - Higher educational qualification does not confer a preferential right - Written examination marks are the sole criterion as per advertisement. (Paras 20-22)

(C) Estoppel - Candidate participating in selection process without objection cannot later challenge procedure after being unsuccessful - Principle applied in Madan Lal v. State of J&K, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar. (Paras 28-31)

Facts of the case:
The applicants, residents of District Poonch, applied for the post of Constable in J&K Police pursuant to Advertisement Notification dated 25.08.2015. They qualified the physical tests and appeared in the written examination. Their names did not appear in the select list. They challenged the selection of private respondents No. 4 to 22, alleging that less qualified candidates were selected, the age of one respondent was below the prescribed limit, the horizontal reservation for SPOs was misapplied, and the conduct of the OMR-based examination permitted manipulation by allowing candidates to cross an answer and mark another option, rendering the process non-transparent.

Findings of Court:
The applicants secured marks (ranging from 21 to 41) well below the cut-off (55 for Open Merit, 45 for RBA). No illegality in the selection was established. The challenge to the age of respondent No. 22 was factually incorrect (born on 01.01.1997 was within the eligibility limit). The allegation regarding horizontal reservation was unsupported by material. The challenge to examination procedure was barred by estoppel as applicants participated without objection.

Issues: (i) Whether the selection of private respondents was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. (ii) Whether the applicants, in spite of being more qualified, have a right to be preferred over candidates who secured higher marks in the written examination. (iii) Whether the horizontal reservation for SPOs was wrongly applied. (iv) Whether the written examination procedure permitting candidates to cross an answer and mark another option was vitiated.

Ratio Decidendi: In a selection process where the mode of assessment is prescribed in the advertisement, selection must be made in that manner. A candidate possessing a higher qualification cannot insist that such higher qualification should override the notified selection criterion. Candidates who participate in a selection process without demur are estopped from challenging the procedure after being unsuccessful. Result : Transfer Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of challenge and relief sought in the transferred case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. respondents' defense and justification of the selection process. (Para 4 , 5 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. applicants lack merit; marks below cut-off; higher qualification no right. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. challenge to examination procedure barred by estoppel; no manipulation proved. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. limited scope of judicial review; application dismissed. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

ORDER Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The SWP No.1594/2016 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.2546/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

I. CERTIORARI : - seeking quashment of selection of private respondents No.4 to 22 as Police Constable J&K Police Executive/Armed issued by respondent No.2 dated 25-06-2016 made in J&K Police pursuant to advertisement notification No.Pers/A/117/2015/ 47322-422 dated 25-08- 2015 in open merit figuring from serial No.74 upto 85 of the select list and under the RBA category from figuring at serial No.26 upto 30 as also respondent No.22 figuring at serial No.3 of the select list under RBA category being illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide and against the relevant rules and selection norms.

II. MANDAMUS Commanding and directing the respondents to consider the selection and appointment of the petitioners as Police Constables in J&K Police (Executive/Armed) taking in regard the merit and qualification of the petitioners in respective categories.

III. With a further direction to the respondent0030 produce the entire record of the selection of the Police Constables in J&K (Executive/Armed) made pursuant to advertisement supra for perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

IV. PROHIBITION prohibiting and restraining the respondents not to issue the appointment orders in favour of the private respondents No.4 to 22 till the final outcome of the present writ petition.

With any other writ, order or direction to which the petitioners are found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -

a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No.

1594/2016, which stood transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu to this Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 2546/2021. The applicants have called in question the selection of private respondents No. 4 to 22 as Constables in J&K Police Executive/Armed, pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. Pers/A/117/2015/47322-422 dated 25.08.2015 and the select list issued on 25.06.2016.

b) The applicants are residents of District Poonch and had applied for the post of Constable in J&K Police Executive/Armed in response to the aforesaid advertisement notification. It is pleaded that applicants No. 1 to 4 belong to the RBA category, whereas applicants No. 5 to 8 belong to the Open Merit category. Applicant No. 1 is stated to be possessing the qualification of M.A., B.Ed., while the other applicants possess qualifications ranging from B.A. to 10+2.

c) As per the advertisement notification, applications were invited from eligible permanent residents of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir for recruitment to the posts of Constables in Executive/Armed Police. For District Poonch, 37 posts were advertised in Executive Police and 113 posts in Armed Police. The notification also provided 15% horizontal reservation for eligible Special Police Officers who had completed three years of continuous engagement and Volunteer Home Guards who had completed five years of service.

d) The case of the applicants is that they were eligible in all respects, applied in their respective categories and participated in the entire sele

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6549

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRajinder Singh Dogra, MEMBER (J), Ram Mohan Johri, MEMBER (A)Fiaz Ahmed – AppellantVersusState of Jammu and Kashmir – RespondentTransfer Application No. 2546/2021

Cases Referred (3)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, MEMBER (J), Ram Mohan Johri, MEMBER (A)
Fiaz Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 2546/2021