Appointment Quashed: CAT Jammu Finds Grave Irregularities in JKPSC Selection Process

Jammu: In a significant ruling, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, has quashed the selection and appointment of a candidate to the post of Physical Education Lecturer, citing blatant violations of recruitment rules, arbitrary alteration of merit lists, and disregard for the Tribunal's interim orders.

The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra , Member (J), and Hon’ble Mr. Ram Mohan Johri , Member (A), came in response to two Original Applications filed by Tarvinderpal Singh , challenging the recommendation and subsequent appointment of Sahil Sharma to the disputed post under the Pahari Speaking People (PSP) category.

Case Background

The dispute arose from the selection process initiated by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission ( JKPSC ) for 24 posts of Physical Education Lecturer, including one reserved for the PSP category, vide notification dated 05.08.2022. Applicant Tarvinderpal Singh and Respondent No. 3, Sahil Sharma , both applied under the PSP category.

Tarvinderpal Singh initially qualified the written examination held on 09.04.2023 and was called for the interview. He was subsequently included in the provisional select list published on 01.06.2023, showing him as the most meritorious candidate in the PSP category with 40.03 total points.

However, Sahil Sharma , who had not qualified the written test initially, was later called for an interview via a notification dated 17.05.2023. Subsequently, the JKPSC issued a notification on 14.07.2023, recommending Sahil Sharma 's name for appointment, replacing that of the applicant from the provisional list. Tarvinderpal Singh challenged this recommendation in OA No. 805/2023, securing an interim stay on Sahil Sharma 's appointment on 24.07.2023. Despite this stay, the government proceeded to appoint Sahil Sharma on 12.10.2023, which led to the filing of OA No. 544/2024 to quash the appointment order itself.

Arguments Presented

Applicant's Contentions: Tarvinderpal Singh argued that he was more meritorious, securing 40.03 points against Sahil Sharma 's initially declared 25.1 points. He contended that his exclusion from the final list was arbitrary and illegal. He also questioned Sahil Sharma 's eligibility under the PSP category and alleged that the selection was mala fide and driven by favoritism, bypassing the due process and proper notification procedures for changing the selection list. Crucially, he highlighted that Sahil Sharma 's appointment proceeded in clear violation of the Tribunal's interim stay order.

Respondents' Defence: The JKPSC and Sahil Sharma argued that an initial clerical error led to the under-assessment of Sahil Sharma 's written marks (recorded as 11.01 instead of 35.96). They claimed that upon representation, the error was rectified, resulting in a corrected total score of 49.96, which placed him above the applicant. They stated that the provisional list was subject to objections and the final list was corrected based on verified marks. Regarding the appointment despite the stay, Respondent No. 1 (Dept.) claimed unawareness of the order, though it was later held in abeyance. Sahil Sharma also defended his PSP eligibility, stating it was confirmed by revenue authorities.

Tribunal's Findings and Reasoning

The Tribunal meticulously examined the evidence and the submissions, particularly scrutinizing the JKPSC 's actions and the OMR sheet of Respondent No. 3.

Grave Procedural Irregularities: The bench noted that the OMR sheet of Sahil Sharma produced on record was significantly incomplete, lacking entries for critical fields like name, roll number, subject code, and booklet series. More damningly, "Encircling of the answers was missing in the Original/Carbon/Colour Photocopy of the OMR Sheet."

Violation of JKPSC Rules: The Tribunal highlighted specific regulations of the PSC (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2022 that were violated: * Regulation 46 (No Re-evaluation): This rule expressly bars re-evaluation of OMR answer sheets under any circumstances. The Tribunal found that the JKPSC proceeded with re-evaluation for Respondent No. 3 without any statutory backing or recorded reasons, terming it an "arbitrary exercise of power" and a violation committed "with impunity." * Regulation 45 (Scrutiny and Notification): This rule requires any modification to a published select list to be done through a corrigendum/modified notification. The Tribunal found that "no modified select list was either published or ever issued by the JKPSC ... and name of the Respondent No. 3 was straight away recommended... in most clandestine manner." This was held to be "patently illegal." * Regulation 33 (Misconduct): The Tribunal noted that the JKPSC failed to inquire into the veracity of Sahil Sharma 's claim about the invigilator handing him the wrong booklet series, as required under this regulation concerning potential misconduct.

Disregard for Judicial Order: The Tribunal severely indicted the respondents for proceeding with Sahil Sharma 's appointment on 12.10.2023 despite the interim stay granted on 24.07.2023, which was passed in the presence of counsel for Respondents 1 & 2. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of India, (2012) 1 SCC 273 , the Tribunal emphasized that court orders must be obeyed and disobedience is an "assault on the rule of law."

Change of Rules Mid-Game: The Tribunal invoked the well-established legal principle that the "rules of the game cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced," citing Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve 2001 (10) SCC 51 . It observed that in this case, the rules were changed "after the game has been played and the results of the game were being awaited," which is "unacceptable and impermissible." The alteration of the merit list without transparency was also held impermissible, following K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 .

The Tribunal noted serious doubts regarding the PSC's proactivity in Sahil Sharma 's case, questioning why the Controller of Examination re-evaluated the OMR sheet against rules and without higher approval, especially given the glaring omissions on the sheet itself. It concluded that the selection process adopted for Sahil Sharma was not transparent and violated principles of natural justice by not informing the applicant about the change.

Decision and Implications

Based on these findings, the Tribunal held that the Original Applications had merit and allowed them. The key directions are:

1. The impugned Notification dated 14.07.2023 (recommending R3) and Government Order dated 12.10.2023 (appointing R3) are quashed and set aside .
2. The JKPSC is directed to recommend the name of Tarvinderpal Singh for appointment as Physical Education Lecturer under the PSP category within two weeks, based on the original select list dated 01.06.2023.
3. The concerned department (Respondent No. 1) is directed to issue the appointment order in favour of the applicant within four weeks of receiving the recommendation from the PSC.

In a significant step towards accountability, the Tribunal also directed the Chairman, JKPSC , to conduct a detailed departmental enquiry within two months into the circumstances of the arbitrary re-evaluation of Respondent No. 3's OMR sheet and the failure to follow prescribed procedures (Regulations 45 & 46) and report the findings to the Tribunal. The enquiry is to specifically determine who authorized the re-evaluation, the legal basis, the urgency, the failure to issue a corrigendum, the violation of the interim order, and why the affected applicant was not informed.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding the integrity and transparency of public recruitment processes and holding authorities accountable for arbitrary actions and contempt of court orders.