Anil Kumar Anand vs D/o Health And Medical Education Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir on 31 December 2025

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.715/2017 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.3763/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: - It are, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly allow this writ petition and issue an appropriate writ, command, order or direction more particularly writ in the nature of; a) Certiorari, Quashing the Selection List No. DIP/J-8993 Dated 01-02-2017 qua the private respondent no.4, Issued by the Respondent no.3, whereby selected the Private Respondent no.4, as junior health Inspector (computers) by purporting the forged & Fake certificate of resident of backward Area (RBA). b) Prohibition, Directing the respondent no. 2 & 3 not to recommend the name of the private respondent for the appointment as Junior Health Inspector (Computers) and further by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 3 :: TA 3763/2021

commanding the Respondent no.1 not to issue the appointment letter in favour of the private respondent no.4, for the Post of Junior Health Inspector (Computers) for District Udhampur under RBA category by virtue of selection & Recommendation by the respondent no. 2 & 3 Selection List No. DIP/J-8993 Dated 01-02-2017. c) Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent no.2 & 3, to recommend the name of the petitioner for the post of Junior Health Inspector (Computers) under RBA Category to Respondent no.1 and further commanding the respondent no.1 for issuing the appointment letter in favour of the Petitioner for the post of the Junior Health Inspector (Computers) under RBA category forthwith Prayer for issuance of any other interim or final relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: - by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: TA 3763/2021

a) The applicant, a permanent resident of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and a citizen of India, claims entitlement to consideration for public employment in accordance with the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. b) The Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB) issued Advertisement Notice No. 325/04 of 2013 dated 23.02.2013, inviting applications for district cadre posts of Junior Health Inspector (Computers) in the Health & Medical Education Department for District Udhampur, including one post reserved for the Resident of Backward Area (RBA) category. c) The applicant, asserting full eligibility, applied for the said post under the RBA category. He participated in the written examination as well as the interview process conducted by the JKSSB and claims to have performed satisfactorily in both stages. d) Upon issuance of the final selection list bearing No. DIP/J-8993 dated 01.02.2017, the applicant was placed in the waiting list, by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: TA 3763/2021

whereas respondent no.4 (Radhika) was selected under the RBA category. The applicant asserts that he was taken by surprise by his non-selection despite his performance and expected merit position. e) The gravamen of the applicant’s challenge is that respondent no.4 allegedly secured selection by relying upon a forged, fake and invalid RBA certificate, purportedly issued in respect of village Basantgarh, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Udhampur. According to the applicant, respondent no.4 and her family were never actual residents of the said backward area and had long shifted to Udhampur town. f) It is alleged that the parents of respondent no.4 were senior Gazetted officers in government service, drawing income far beyond the permissible ceiling prescribed for issuance of an RBA certificate. The applicant contends that respondent no.4 neither satisfied the mandatory residential requirement of 15 years nor fulfilled the income criteria prescribed under the applicable Reservation Rules.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: TA 3763/2021

g) The applicant relies upon Rule 21 and Rule 22 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, asserting that the conditions precedent for issuance of an RBA certificate were not satisfied in the case of respondent no.4, rendering the certificate void ab initio. h) The applicant further submits that he approached the JKSSB by way of representations seeking cancellation of the candidature of respondent no.4 and his own selection under the RBA category. However, no decision was taken on the said representations, compelling the applicant to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, later transferred to this Tribunal. i) It is the specific case of the applicant that the selection process was allowed to proceed without adjudicating his grievance, thereby violating principles of fairness, transparency, and natural justice, and resulting in arbitrary deprivation of his legitimate right of consideration.

4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: - by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: TA 3763/2021

a) The answering respondents submit that the Transfer Application is misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. No enforceable legal or statutory right of the applicant has been infringed so as to warrant interference by this Hon’ble Tribunal. b) It is submitted that the selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the terms of the advertisement. The applicant participated in the entire selection process with full knowledge of its conditions and cannot now assail the outcome merely because he was not selected. c) The JKSSB, being a statutory recruiting agency, is confined to assessing merit on the basis of documents produced by candidates at the relevant time. The Board does not possess statutory authority to verify the genuineness of category certificates, which falls exclusively within the domain of the competent issuing authorities and the appointing department. d) The applicant has approached the Tribunal with unclean hands, raising vague, unsubstantiated and belated allegations against a by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: TA 3763/2021

duly selected candidate, without first availing the statutory remedies available under the Reservation Act and Rules. e) It is admitted that one post under the RBA category was advertised and that respondent no.4 secured higher aggregate merit (60.2000 points) as compared to the applicant (58.2667 points). The applicant was accordingly placed in the waiting list, strictly on the basis of merit. f) The selection list was finalized and forwarded to the indenting department after completion of all formalities. Once the selection process stood concluded, no cause of action survived in favour of the applicant to seek interference with the finalized selection. g) The mere inclusion of the applicant’s name in a waiting list does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment. Operation of the waiting list is within the exclusive domain of the indenting department and subject to availability of vacancies. h) The allegations regarding invalidity of the RBA certificate are emphatically denied. The Board acted bonafidely on the basis by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: TA 3763/2021

of a category certificate issued by the competent authority. Any challenge to the validity of such certificate must be raised before the appropriate statutory forum and not before the selecting agency. i) The respondents reiterate that the entire selection process was transparent, fair, and in consonance with law, and no arbitrariness or illegality can be attributed to the actions of the JKSSB. j) The Transfer Application, being devoid of merit and founded on conjectures and surmises, deserves dismissal with costs.

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

6. The present Transfer Application has arisen from SWP No. 715/2017 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, which stood transferred and registered as T.A. No. 3763/2021 before this Tribunal.

7. The applicant assails the selection of private respondent no.4 (Radhika) to the post of Junior Health Inspector (Computers), District Cadre Udhampur, under RBA category, and seeks (i)

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: TA 3763/2021

quashment of the selection list dated 01.02.2017 qua respondent no.4, (ii) restraint against issuance of appointment in her favour, and

(iii) a direction to recommend/appoint the applicant against the RBA post.

8. JKSSB advertised posts of Junior Health Inspector (Computers), District Cadre Udhampur, under Item No. 325/04 of 2013 dated 23.02.2013. The advertised breakup, as stated by the Board, was OM- 01, RBA-01, SC-01.

9. The applicant applied claiming RBA category. He appeared in written examination and viva-voce. The selection list bearing No. DIP/J-8993 dated 01.02.2017 was issued, wherein the private respondent was shown selected under RBA, and the applicant figured at S. No.1 in the waiting list under OM, as per the pleadings on record.

10. The principal grievance raised is that respondent no.4 allegedly produced/relied upon a fake/invalid RBA certificate, that she and her family were not actual residents of the backward area, and that income ceiling was allegedly breached. The applicant claims that if respondent no.4 is excluded, he ought to be recommended/appointed.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: TA 3763/2021

11. The Board, in reply, asserts that selection was conducted as per rules; respondent no.4 secured higher aggregate points than the applicant; that the Board acts on certificates produced and verification of genuineness is for the appointing/indent department/competent authority; and that a waiting list confers no indefeasible right.

12. Respondent no.4, in objections, raises, inter alia: (i) challenge to category certificate must be pursued before the competent forum under the Reservation Act/Rules; (ii) applicant lacks locus because he stands shifted to OM and has not challenged such shifting; (iii) appointment has already followed and is not challenged appropriately;

(iv) income ceiling aspect is not applicable in view of amendment and relevant rule position as pleaded; and (v) equity/settled position after long years of service.

13. The applicant filed rejoinder referring to RTI replies about non- availability of file, affidavit of Tehsildar, and other asserted circumstances to doubt genuineness/validity of the certificate and selection.

14. The controversy gives rise to the following issues:

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: TA 3763/2021

 Whether this Tribunal, in a service selection dispute, can undertake a determination of validity/genuineness of an RBA certificate issued by a statutory revenue authority, without the certificate being set aside by the competent forum?  Whether the applicant has locus standi/right to seek appointment against RBA post, when, as per the record itself, he stands reflected in the waiting list under OM and has not challenged such categorization?  Whether on facts and in law the selection list dated 01.02.2017 and consequential actions warrant interference? Issue (i): Jurisdictional discipline in matters of category certificate

15. The applicant’s entire cause is founded on the assertion that respondent no.4’s RBA certificate is fake/invalid and therefore her selection must fall. However, the material on record itself shows that the RBA certificate is stated to have been issued by the competent revenue authority (Tehsildar), and respondent no.4’s defence is that the selecting/appointing authority cannot sit as an appellate authority over such certificate; the forum and procedure for adjudication of by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: TA 3763/2021

reservation status and category certificates is prescribed under the statutory regime governing reservation.

16. This Tribunal does not exercise a roving fact-finding jurisdiction to “trial” the genuineness of a category certificate as if it were the primary certificate-scrutiny authority, particularly when the statute provides a structured mechanism and competent authority for such questions. In service law, selection bodies are entitled to proceed on certificates issued by competent authorities; unless the certificate is annulled/withdrawn/cancelled by the competent forum/authority in accordance with law, the selection cannot ordinarily be undone merely on allegations.

17. In the present case, what is placed is (a) an allegation of non- availability of file/record in RTI replies and (b) asserted circumstances regarding schooling/income/transfer/militancy-related shifting. These aspects, even if taken at face value, require determination by the competent authority/forum empowered to adjudicate reservation status and certificate validity, and not by converting this T.A. into a certificate-verification proceeding.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: TA 3763/2021

18. Therefore, on first principles of jurisdictional discipline, the applicant cannot obtain quashment of selection solely by contesting the certificate in these proceedings, without first establishing its invalidity before the appropriate forum/authority. Issue (ii): Locus and enforceable right of the applicant

19. The record itself reflects that the applicant is shown at S. No.1 in the waiting list under OM, whereas respondent no.4 is selected under RBA. Respondent no.4 specifically pleads that the applicant was “shifted” to OM and has not challenged such shifting; and therefore he lacks locus to claim the RBA post or to challenge the selection of an RBA candidate.

20. This Tribunal finds substance in the objection. A candidate can succeed in service litigation only on the basis of a legally enforceable right. The applicant being positioned in OM waiting list, without impugning the basis on which he is treated as OM vis-à-vis RBA, cannot, as a matter of course, claim that he must be appointed against the RBA slot. His prayer is, in effect, for a positive appointment order, which is an exceptional relief and can be granted only where by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: TA 3763/2021

entitlement is clear, right is established, and the process is demonstrably illegal—none of which is established here.

21. Further, the Board has categorically pleaded that operation of the waiting list is the domain of the indenting department and that a waiting list per se creates no indefeasible right to appointment. Issue (iii): Whether the selection warrants interference

22. The Board’s reply shows comparative merit: applicant’s aggregate points (written + viva) 58.2667 and respondent no.4’s 60.2000, and selection was made accordingly.

23. The Board’s position that it proceeds on certificates submitted, and that verification is for the competent authority/appointing department, is a plausible and legally consistent stand for a recruiting agency in absence of a statutory mandate to adjudicate validity of category certificates itself.

24. The applicant’s rejoinder relies heavily on RTI replies indicating that the record/file was “not readily available” and assertions regarding schooling and income. Non-availability of a particular file on a particular date, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive proof that a certificate never existed or is necessarily fake; at best it raises a by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 16 :: TA 3763/2021

dispute which must be examined by the competent authority in accordance with law. The Tribunal cannot, on the basis of such disputed assertions, upset a concluded selection and dislodge a selected candidate, particularly where the applicant’s own entitlement to the RBA post is not established with clarity for reasons already discussed.

25. Moreover, the objections disclose that respondent no.4 has been working for a long duration, and disturbing such appointment after lapse of time, without a legally adjudicated finding of certificate invalidity by the competent forum, would be contrary to settled service jurisprudence which leans against unsettling appointments on unproven allegations and disputed facts in collateral proceedings.

26. Taking an overall view, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has not demonstrated any patent illegality in the selection process attributable to the recruiting agency, nor established a clear, enforceable right to appointment against the RBA post.

27. For the reasons recorded above, this Tribunal holds that: a) The challenge mounted is essentially a challenge to the validity/genuineness of the RBA certificate, which cannot be by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 17 :: TA 3763/2021

conclusively adjudicated in the present proceedings in the manner sought, particularly without prior determination by the competent forum/authority. b) The applicant, being shown in the OM waiting list, without challenging the basis of such categorization, lacks clear locus to seek a mandamus for appointment against the RBA post. c) No case for interference with the selection list dated 01.02.2017 qua respondent no.4 is made out on the basis of the record placed.

28. Accordingly, T.A. No. 3763/2021 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

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

Judicial Member

/harshit/

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV