Yog Raj vs D/o Revenue Ut Of J$k on 31 December 2025

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.526/2017 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.5678/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: - a) allow the present writ petition; b) quash Communication bearing No. FC(Adm-Misc)13/2016 dated 26.12.2016 addressed by the office of respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 3, directing the respondent No. 3, to issue formal appointment orders in favour of respondent No. 4 as Driver (Revenue Department) District Cadre, Udhampur; c) quash Order No. DCU-14 of 2016-17 dated 26.12.2016, whereby and whereunder, sanction was accorded for appointment of respondent No. 4, as Driver (Revenue Department) District Cadre, Udhampur; d) command and direct the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner as Driver (Revenue Department) District Cadre, Udhampur in place of respondent No. 4, who has usurped the post of Driver (Revenue Department) District Cadre, Udhampur on the basis of fake/multiple driving licences; e) restrain the official respondents to make payment of salary to respondent No. 4, who got his appointment as Driver (Revenue Department) District Cadre, Udhampur on the basis of fake driving licen ces

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 3 :: TA 5678/2021

f) ANY other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in his pleadings are as follows: - a) The present Transfer Application has its genesis in SWP No. 526/2017, which was initially filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and, upon transfer, came to be registered as T.A. No. 5678/2021 before this Tribunal b) The applicant claims to be a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and asserts that he is entitled to consideration for public employment in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework governing such appointments. The controversy arises out of the selection process initiated by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2015 dated 01.09.2015, whereby a large number of posts, including one post of Driver (Revenue Department), District Cadre Udhampur, advertised under Item No. 653, were notified. The essential qualification prescribed for the said post was Matriculation with a valid Hill Driving Licence.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: TA 5678/2021

c) The applicant, asserting his eligibility, claims to have applied for the said post. He holds a Matric qualification, along with a 10+2 qualification, and was in possession of a driving licence bearing No. JK-1420070001260 dated 30.12.2007. He was shortlisted and appeared in the driving test and interview conducted on 03.05.2016. d) Upon publication of the select list vide Notification No. DIP/K- 3650/2016 dated 17.06.2016, the applicant found that respondent No. 4, Rupinder Kumar, had been selected, whereas the applicant was placed at Serial No. 1 of the waiting list. The applicant alleges that the selection of respondent No. 4 is illegal, arbitrary, and vitiated by fraud, as respondent No. 4 allegedly possessed multiple driving licences, some of which, according to the applicant, were fake or obtained in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. e) It is the applicant’s case that respondent No. 4 had passed the matriculation examination with comparatively lower marks and did not possess any additional qualification. The applicant further alleges that the driving licence relied upon by respondent No. 4 at the time of selection does not find place in

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: TA 5678/2021

the official records of the licensing authority and that respondent No. 4 had, in fact, obtained more than one driving licence from different authorities without disclosing the existence of earlier licences, in violation of Section 6(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. f) The applicant contends that the requisite endorsement for the relevant class of vehicle, as prescribed in the advertisement, was obtained by respondent No. 4 after the cut-off date of 18.09.2015 and, therefore, could not have been considered for the purpose of selection. It is further alleged that respondent No. 4 committed fraud by suppressing material facts while applying for the post and that such fraud vitiates the entire selection. g) Aggrieved by the selection, the applicant initially approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of SWP No. 1405/2016. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14.07.2016, granting liberty to the applicant to file a representation/complaint before the competent authorities regarding the alleged fake driving licences of respondent No. 4, with a direction that the same be considered in accordance with law.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: TA 5678/2021

h) Pursuant thereto, the applicant submitted a detailed representation to the official respondents. However, according to the applicant, instead of considering his representation, the official respondents proceeded to issue communications directing issuance of appointment orders in favour of respondent No. 4. Ultimately, vide Order No. DCU-14 of 2016- 17 dated 26.12.2016, respondent No. 4 was appointed as Driver (Revenue Department), District Cadre Udhampur. i) The applicant alleges that the appointment order was issued in utter disregard of the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court and without verifying the genuineness and legality of the multiple driving licences allegedly held by respondent No. 4. The applicant, therefore, challenges the said appointment order as illegal, unconstitutional, and void ab initio, seeking quashment thereof and a consequential direction for his own appointment.

4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: - a) The official respondents, particularly the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board, have filed their reply raising

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: TA 5678/2021

preliminary objections as well as responding to the merits of the case. At the outset, it is contended that the present Transfer Application is misconceived and devoid of merit, as no legal or enforceable right of the applicant has been infringed. b) It is stated that the Board, in exercise of its statutory functions, issued Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2015 dated 01.09.2015, advertising various posts, including the post of Driver (Revenue Department), District Cadre Udhampur, under Item No. 653, with a clear breakup of vacancies and prescribed eligibility criteria. After completion of the selection process strictly in accordance with the notified procedure, the selection list was issued and forwarded to the indenting department vide communication dated 13.06.2016. c) The respondents assert that the selection was conducted in a transparent and fair manner. The applicant secured 89 points, whereas respondent No. 4 secured 91 points, thereby making respondent No. 4 more meritorious. The selection was based on performance in the driving test and interview, as prescribed in the advertisement, and not solely on academic qualifications.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: TA 5678/2021

d) It is further submitted that respondent No. 4 produced a valid driving licence showing that the primary licence was issued on 31.12.2002, with endorsements for various classes of vehicles made on 29.05.2013, which was well before the cut-off date of 18.09.2015. Therefore, respondent No. 4 fulfilled the essential eligibility conditions as on the relevant date. e) The answering respondents have clarified that the Board does not possess a foolproof mechanism to verify the genuineness of all certificates at the selection stage and that such verification is the responsibility of the indenting department. The selection list itself contained a clear stipulation that in case any document is found to be fake during verification, appropriate action, including criminal proceedings, may be initiated. f) The respondents deny all allegations of arbitrariness, illegality, or mala fides and submit that the applicant, having secured lesser merit, has no vested right to claim appointment. It is further contended that mere placement in the waiting list does not confer any indefeasible right of appointment upon the applicant.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: TA 5678/2021

g) The official respondents thus pray for dismissal of the Transfer Application, asserting that the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 are lawful, valid, and in consonance with the applicable rules and the terms of the advertisement.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. The present Transfer Application, originally filed as SWP No. 526/2017 before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and subsequently transferred to this Tribunal, calls into question the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Driver (Revenue Department), District Cadre Udhampur, pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2015 dated 01.09.2015

7. At the very outset, it needs to be observed that the scope of judicial review in matters of selection and appointment is well-defined and circumscribed. The Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of a duly constituted Selection Board and cannot substitute its own assessment of merit unless the selection is shown to be vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides, violation of statutory rules, or proven fraud.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: TA 5678/2021

8. The admitted factual matrix reveals that the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board issued Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2015, advertising various posts including the post of Driver (Revenue Department), District Cadre Udhampur, prescribing Matriculation with Hill Driving Licence as the essential qualification. The applicant admittedly applied for the said post, appeared in the driving test and interview, and was placed at Serial No. 1 of the waiting list. Respondent No. 4 was selected on the basis of higher merit, having secured 91 points as against 89 points secured by the applicant.

9. The entire edifice of the applicant’s challenge rests upon the allegation that respondent No. 4 possessed multiple driving licences and that such possession rendered him ineligible for selection. The applicant further contends that the endorsement for the relevant class of vehicle was obtained after the cut-off date and that the authorities acted in violation of the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court while disposing of SWP No. 1405/2016.

10. This Tribunal has carefully examined the pleadings, the replies, and the material placed on record. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 4 possessed a driving licence originally issued on 31.12.2002 and that endorsements for additional classes of vehicles were made on

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: TA 5678/2021

29.05.2013, which is much prior to the cut-off date of 18.09.2015 prescribed in the advertisement. Therefore, the essential eligibility condition relating to possession of a valid driving licence stood satisfied as on the relevant date.

11. The argument of the applicant that respondent No. 4 held multiple driving licences, by itself, does not advance the case any further. The respondents have placed on record a categorical explanation that the subsequent licences were obtained owing to non-availability of old records with the licensing authority, particularly at Doda, a fact which is supported by official communication indicating loss of records and lodging of FIR. The applicant has failed to place on record any conclusive or authoritative finding by a competent authority declaring the driving licence relied upon by respondent No. 4 to be fake, forged, or invalid.

12. It is a settled principle of law that mere allegations of fraud, howsoever serious, cannot be accepted in the absence of cogent proof. Fraud must be pleaded with specificity and proved with unimpeachable evidence. In the present case, the applicant has not impleaded the concerned licensing authorities as necessary parties, nor has any adjudication been rendered by the competent authority

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: TA 5678/2021

under the Motor Vehicles Act declaring the licence of respondent No. 4 to be illegal or void. In the absence of such determination, this Tribunal cannot assume the role of a fact-finding authority to decide the genuineness of a driving licence.

13. The reliance placed by the applicant on Section 6(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is also misplaced in the facts of the present case. Even assuming that there were irregularities in issuance or renewal of licences, the same would, at best, require examination by the licensing authority and cannot automatically render the selection illegal unless it is shown that the candidate was ineligible on the cut-off date.

14. Equally untenable is the contention that the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 1405/2016 were violated. A perusal of the said order reveals that the High Court merely granted liberty to the applicant to submit a representation, with a corresponding obligation upon the authorities to consider the same. The order did not restrain the authorities from proceeding with the appointment nor did it mandate withholding of appointment till conclusion of any enquiry. The material on record shows that the authorities examined the complaint and, finding no legal infirmity affecting eligibility, proceeded with the appointment of respondent No. 4. Mere non-

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: TA 5678/2021

acceptance of the applicant’s representation cannot be equated with non-consideration.

15. The applicant’s placement at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list also does not confer any vested or indefeasible right to appointment. It is well- settled that inclusion in a waiting list does not create a right to appointment unless the selection of the main candidate is set aside on legally sustainable grounds. Since the selection of respondent No. 4 has not been shown to be illegal, arbitrary, or contrary to the rules, the applicant cannot claim appointment as a matter of right.

16. It is also significant to note that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the terms of the advertisement, wherein merit was assessed primarily on the basis of driving test and interview. The applicant’s higher academic qualification, though laudable, did not carry any statutory weightage beyond what was prescribed, and cannot be used to dislodge a more meritorious candidate.

17. In the absence of any proven illegality, procedural impropriety, or violation of statutory rules, this Tribunal finds no justification to interfere with the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4. The challenge raised by the applicant is founded on conjectures,

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: TA 5678/2021

presumptions, and disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings of this nature.

18. For the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicant has failed to make out any case for interference. The Transfer Application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Driver (Revenue Department), District Cadre Udhampur, is upheld.

19. There shall be no order as to costs.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

/harshit/

HARSHIT YADAV