Ravi Kant vs D/o Agriculture Production Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir on 31 December 2025

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.2524/2018 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.5810/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: - a) “ Mandamus: For directing the respondents to upgrade the select list of Sericulture Assistant issued vide item No. 161 of advertisement Notice 5 of 2015 dated 01-09-2015 and thereby shift the respondent No. 4 selected in RBA category to open merit category according to his merit position and shift the petitioner according to his merit in select list of the open merit or in RBA Category as the respondent have done in Kashmir Division select list vide notification No. 3 of 2012 for the same post in the same department vide item No. 156. b) Mandamus: Commanding and directing the respondents to operate the select list/waiting list formed after up- gradation of the select list of sericulture Assistant in Agricultural Production Department vide item No. 161 of the Advertisement Notice 5 of 2015 dated 01-09-2015 and appoint the petitioner as Sericulture Assistant according to his merit in open merit or in the RBA Category. c) Any other appropriate order or direction as the facts of the case demand and this Hon'ble court may deem just and proper may also be issued in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 3 :: TA 5810/2021

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: - a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 2524/2018, originally instituted before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and later transferred to this Tribunal. The applicant seeks judicial intervention primarily on the ground of alleged discrimination and denial of parity in the operation of the select list pertaining to the post of Sericulture Assistant in the Agriculture Production Department. b) The applicant is a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and claims to possess superior academic qualifications, being an M.Sc. in Sericulture and pursuing Ph.D. in the same discipline. He belongs to the RBA category and claims to have participated in the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 05 of 2015 dated 01.09.2015, issued by the J&K Services Selection Board (JKSSB), whereby seven posts of Sericulture Assistant (State Cadre) were advertised—six under Open Merit and one under RBA category.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: TA 5810/2021

c) It is the pleaded case of the applicant that several earlier advertisements for the same post, namely Advertisement Notices of 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015, were clubbed together and a common written examination was conducted in the year 2017. Following the written test, interviews were notified vide communication dated 26.07.2017, and after removal of document deficiencies, the applicant appeared in the interview held on 05.09.2017. d) Upon culmination of the selection process, the JKSSB issued the final select list on 14.12.2017. The applicant did not find place in the final selection but was positioned at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list under RBA category. It is further asserted that out of the selected candidates, three candidates belonging to Open Merit category did not join, and each of them submitted affidavits before the authorities expressing unwillingness to accept the appointment and conveying no objection to the appointment of next meritorious candidates. e) Additionally, one candidate, namely Abid Khaliq Tantray, whose name appeared at Serial No. 5 in the select list, failed to submit requisite documents and also submitted an affidavit on by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: TA 5810/2021

11.01.2018, expressing disinterest in joining. His candidature was subsequently cancelled vide Order No. 465-SSB of 2018 dated 25.10.2018, wherein it was expressly stated that the waiting list could be operated, if required. f) The grievance of the applicant substantially rests on the plea that in respect of Kashmir Division, for the same post of Sericulture Assistant under Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2012 (Item No. 156), the JKSSB rescheduled the select list after deleting non-joining candidates, adjusted reserved category candidates against Open Merit on the basis of merit, and issued a revised select list. The applicant contends that despite identical circumstances and a common selection process, such rescheduling was not done in his case, resulting in hostile discrimination. g) The applicant claims to have submitted multiple representations dated 26.07.2018 and 26.09.2018, requesting similar treatment and operation of the waiting list. However, according to him, the respondents neither decided the representations nor passed any speaking order, allegedly with the intent to allow the select by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: TA 5810/2021

list to lapse after one year, thereby defeating his legitimate expectation of appointment. h) Aggrieved by the inaction and alleged discriminatory treatment, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court, and subsequently this Tribunal, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, arbitrariness, non- consideration of merit, and denial of parity with similarly situated candidates.

4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: - a) The answering respondents have vehemently opposed the Transfer Application, contending that the same is misconceived, devoid of merit, and does not disclose any infringement of a legal, constitutional, or statutory right of the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has no enforceable right to claim appointment merely on the basis of inclusion in the waiting list. b) At the outset, the respondents submit that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the applicant, and he lacks locus standi to maintain the present application. The applicant has by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: TA 5810/2021

attempted to mislead this Tribunal by selectively presenting facts and suppressing material aspects, thereby rendering the application liable to dismissal on the principles of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. c) It is clarified that the recruitment process in question was conducted entirely by the JKSSB, which is an independent recruiting agency. The Agriculture Production Department merely acted as the administrative department which placed the indent and had no role whatsoever in conducting the examination, preparing the merit list, rescheduling selections, or operating the waiting list. The Department’s role commences only after receipt of final recommendations from the JKSSB. d) The respondents further submit that all actions relating to issuance of advertisement, conduct of written examination, interviews, preparation of select lists, cancellation of candidature, and any decision regarding operation or non- operation of waiting list fall exclusively within the domain of the JKSSB. The Sericulture Development Department or the by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: TA 5810/2021

Agriculture Production Department cannot be faulted for decisions taken or not taken by the recruiting agency. e) With regard to the applicant’s representations, it is submitted that the same were addressed to the JKSSB, and the answering department had neither the authority nor the mandate to decide such representations. The mere fact that certain candidates did not join does not automatically confer a right upon a waiting list candidate to claim appointment. f) The respondents also deny any allegation of discrimination and submit that the applicant has failed to establish that the factual and legal circumstances of the Kashmir Division selection were identical in all respects so as to invoke the principle of parity. Each selection process, even if for the same post, is governed by its own factual matrix, administrative exigencies, and policy considerations. g) In view of the above submissions, it is asserted that the applicant is attempting to seek a direction for appointment through judicial intervention, which is impermissible in law, particularly when the select list has already exhausted its by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: TA 5810/2021

validity period. The Transfer Application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with costs.

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

6. This Transfer Application has its genesis in SWP No. 2524/2018, which stood transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to this Tribunal and registered as TA No. 5810/2021. The applicant seeks a writ of mandamus directing upgradation and rescheduling of the select list issued pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 05 of 2015 for the post of Sericulture Assistant, primarily on the ground that certain selected candidates failed to join and that a similar rescheduling exercise was allegedly undertaken in respect of Kashmir Division under a different advertisement.

7. The applicant’s claim is essentially founded on three planks: first, that non-joining of selected candidates created vacancies which ought to have been filled by operating the waiting list; second, that the applicant being first in the RBA waiting list had a legitimate expectation of appointment; and third, that denial of rescheduling in his case, while such rescheduling was allegedly done in Kashmir by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: TA 5810/2021

Division, amounts to hostile discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. This Tribunal has carefully considered the pleadings, the documents placed on record, and the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

9. At the outset, it requires to be emphasized that inclusion in a waiting list does not confer any indefeasible or vested right to appointment. The law on this issue is well settled and no longer res integra. A waiting list is merely a reservoir to meet administrative contingencies, if the recruiting authority so decides, and cannot be equated with a select list conferring a right to appointment. The applicant’s entire case proceeds on the erroneous assumption that mere existence of vacancies due to non-joining automatically mandates appointment of waiting list candidates. Such an assumption is legally unsustainable.

10. It is undisputed that the recruitment process in question was conducted by the J&K Services Selection Board, an independent statutory recruiting agency. The Agriculture Production Department or the Sericulture Development Department had no role either in preparation of the select list, cancellation of candidature, rescheduling by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: TA 5810/2021

of selections, or operation of the waiting list. Their role is confined to issuance of appointment orders strictly on the basis of recommendations forwarded by the JKSSB. In the absence of any recommendation in favour of the applicant, no mandamus can be issued to the appointing department to grant appointment.

11. The applicant has heavily relied upon the fact that certain candidates selected under Open Merit did not join and submitted affidavits expressing disinterest. However, non-joining of selected candidates does not, by itself, create a legal compulsion upon the recruiting agency to operate the waiting list, unless the governing rules or a conscious administrative decision so mandates. The order dated 25.10.2018 cancelling the candidature of one candidate merely states that the waiting list may be operated, if required. The expression “if required” clearly signifies discretion and not obligation. Courts and Tribunals cannot substitute their own decision for that of the recruiting agency by compelling operation of a waiting list.

12. The plea of discrimination, which forms the backbone of the applicant’s case, also does not withstand judicial scrutiny. The applicant has sought parity with a selection pertaining to Kashmir Division under Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2012. However, by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: TA 5810/2021

parity cannot be claimed in abstract, and the burden lies heavily upon the claimant to establish complete identity of facts, rules, administrative exigencies and policy considerations. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the circumstances governing the Kashmir Division selection were identical in all material respects. It is well settled that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality, and an alleged irregularity or concession granted elsewhere cannot be invoked as a precedent to perpetuate the same.

13. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, as invoked by the applicant, is also misconceived. Legitimate expectation cannot override statutory provisions, recruitment rules, or administrative discretion vested in the recruiting authority. At best, it entitles a candidate to fair consideration, which the applicant has already received by participation in the selection process. It does not translate into an enforceable right to appointment, particularly when the select list has expired by efflux of time.

14. Equally untenable is the allegation that the respondents deliberately delayed consideration of representations to allow the select list to lapse. Mere pendency or non-disposal of representations does not create a substantive right where none exists in law. It is also relevant by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: TA 5810/2021

to note that the representations were addressed to the JKSSB, and the answering departmental respondents had no authority to decide the same.

15. The Tribunal also finds substance in the respondents’ objection that the applicant is, in effect, seeking a direction for appointment through judicial intervention, which is impermissible. Courts and Tribunals cannot rewrite recruitment processes, extend the life of select lists, or compel appointments contrary to the scheme of selection and governing rules.

16. Viewed from any angle, the applicant has failed to establish violation of any statutory rule, constitutional mandate, or legally enforceable right. The reliefs prayed for are founded on presumptions rather than law, and granting such relief would amount to judicial overreach into the exclusive domain of the recruiting agency.

17. Accordingly, this Tribunal holds that the Transfer Application is devoid of merit, misconceived, and liable to be dismissed.

18. For the foregoing reasons, TA No. 5810/2021 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

/harshit/

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV