Tribhuvneshwari Sharma vs School Education Of J&k Ut on 31 December 2025

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.667/2018 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.826/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: - a) Quash and set aside the impugned letter No. SSB/Sel/Secy/2017/12/57 dated 24.11.2017 issued by respondent No.2 by issuance of writ of certiorari. b) Command and direct the respondent No.2 to select the petitioner for the Post of teacher in District Cadre Jammu in pursuance to advertisement No.6 of 2013 dated 10.05.2010 being eligible in all respect for the said post by issuance of writ of mandamus. c) Command and direct the respondents to reserve one post of teacher for District Cadre Jammu for the petitioner by issuance of writ of mandamus. d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed.

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

:: 3 :: TA 826/2021

a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 667/2018, originally filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu, which upon transfer has been registered as T.A. No. 826/2021 before this Tribunal. The applicant, a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir, claims to be aggrieved by the action of the Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Board in declaring her ineligible for selection to the post of Teacher (District Cadre Jammu) pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013. b) The applicant asserts that she is academically qualified, being a graduate in Science and also holding a Master’s degree in Computer Applications. She states that she was married on 27.02.2009 at Jammu and has been residing continuously in District Jammu both prior to and after her marriage. According to the applicant, her matrimonial family has been settled in Jammu for decades; her husband received his schooling in Jammu and the family owns residential property at Sainik Colony, Jammu, where they have been residing since the mid- by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: TA 826/2021

1990s. Reliance has been placed upon various documents such as school certificates, ration card, voter card, passport, Aadhaar card, water connection orders, and domicile-related certificates to substantiate long-standing residence in Jammu District. c) Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the applicant applied for the post of Teacher under District Cadre Jammu, participated in the selection process, and appeared in the interview. She claims to have secured 41.4775 merit points and contends that she figured in the merit list. However, the final selection was allegedly delayed on the ground that she had not submitted the Permanent Resident Certificate (PRC) of her husband. Upon receipt of a notice dated 10.03.2017, the applicant submitted her husband’s PRC along with supporting documents to establish continuous residence in Jammu. d) The applicant alleges that despite furnishing documentary evidence, the respondent Board relied solely on the PRC of her husband, which reflected District Rajouri as the residential district, and consequently declared her ineligible for selection to the District Cadre Jammu post. This decision was by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: TA 826/2021

communicated vide letter No. SSB/Sel/Secy/2017/12/57 dated 24.11.2017, wherein she was informed that the competent authority had declared her ineligible and that the resultant vacancy would be filled from the waiting list. e) Aggrieved by the said decision, the applicant challenges the impugned communication as illegal, arbitrary, non-speaking, and violative of the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act, 2010, particularly Section 13 thereof. She contends that continuous residence of more than 15 years in a district constitutes eligibility and that marriage should not operate to her detriment. Allegations of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have also been raised. Apprehending that the vacancy may be filled from the waiting list, the applicant further seeks reservation of one post pending adjudication of her claim.

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

:: 6 :: TA 826/2021

a) The answering respondents have filed a detailed reply contesting the claim of the applicant and seeking dismissal of the Transfer Application on both preliminary and substantive grounds. At the outset, the respondents submit that the application is misconceived, devoid of merit, and does not disclose any enforceable legal or constitutional right warranting interference by this Tribunal. b) It is specifically pleaded that no cause of action has accrued to the applicant, as the selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with the statutory rules governing district cadre recruitment. The respondents deny any arbitrariness or illegality in the selection process and assert that the Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Board, being a statutory body, acted strictly within the framework of law. c) The respondents admit that Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013 was issued for filling up posts of Teacher under various district cadres, including District Jammu, and that the applicant participated in the selection process. However, it is categorically stated that the applicant secured by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: TA 826/2021

only 41.9775 marks under the Open Merit category, whereas the last selected candidate in the Open Merit category secured 58.2004 marks, rendering the applicant far below the cut-off merit for selection. d) It is further submitted that the applicant was repeatedly afforded opportunities to submit a valid Permanent Resident Certificate establishing eligibility for District Cadre Jammu. However, the PRC submitted by her husband unequivocally indicated District Rajouri as the residential district. Under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act, 2010, read with the Amendment Act of 2013, the PRC is the conclusive proof of residence for district cadre recruitment. The respondents emphasize that even the special provision applicable to married women mandates that the husband must have resided in the concerned district for a period of not less than 15 years, which condition was not satisfied in the present case as per official records. e) The respondents submit that the applicant’s case was placed before the competent authority/Board, which, upon due by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: TA 826/2021

consideration, declared her ineligible strictly in accordance with the governing statutory provisions. The impugned communication dated 24.11.2017 is thus stated to be legal, reasoned, and in consonance with law. f) It is further averred that mere participation in the selection process or inclusion in a provisional merit list does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment. Once the selection process stood concluded and recommendations forwarded to the indenting department, no surviving cause of action remained in favour of the applicant. g) The respondents deny all allegations of mala fides, arbitrariness, colourable exercise of power, or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They maintain that the entire selection process was transparent, fair, and strictly compliant with the rules in force. h) On these premises, the answering respondents pray that the Transfer Application, being devoid of merit and founded on misconceived assumptions of law and fact, be dismissed with costs.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: TA 826/2021

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

6. The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 667/2018, transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and registered as T.A. No. 826/2021. The applicant seeks quashment of communication dated 24.11.2017 issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Board declaring her ineligible for selection to the post of Teacher (District Cadre Jammu) pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2013 dated 10.05.2013, along with consequential reliefs including selection, appointment, and reservation of a post.

7. The applicant participated in the selection process for the post of Teacher under District Cadre Jammu. She secured 41.9775 merit points under Open Merit category. During scrutiny of documents, she was required to submit a valid Permanent Resident Certificate establishing her eligibility for District Cadre Jammu. The PRC of her husband, which was relied upon by the applicant, reflected District Rajouri as the residential district.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: TA 826/2021

8. Upon consideration, the Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Board declared the applicant ineligible vide communication dated 24.11.2017 and decided to utilize the resultant vacancy through the waiting list. The applicant challenges this decision primarily on the ground that she and her husband have been residing in Jammu for several years and that the impugned action violates Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act, 2010 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

9. The respondents have resisted the application by asserting that:  the applicant failed to submit a valid PRC of her husband establishing District Jammu as the residential district;  PRC is the conclusive proof of district residence for district cadre recruitment;  the applicant was far below the cut-off merit, the last selected Open Merit candidate having secured 58.2004 marks;  participation in selection does not confer any vested right to appointment; and  the selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with the statutory rules.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: TA 826/2021

10. From the pleadings and submissions, the following issues arise for determination:  Whether the applicant fulfilled the statutory eligibility criteria for District Cadre Jammu under the applicable recruitment law?  Whether reliance on the Permanent Resident Certificate as conclusive proof of district residence is legally sustainable?  Whether the applicant, even otherwise, had any enforceable right to appointment in view of her merit position?  Whether the impugned action of the respondents suffers from arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?

11. Recruitment to district cadre posts is governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act, 2010, as amended. The statute clearly envisages district-wise recruitment based on residence, and the Permanent Resident Certificate has consistently been treated as the decisive and authoritative proof of residence for such purposes.

12. The proviso relating to married women does not dilute this requirement; rather, it mandates that the husband must have resided in by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: TA 826/2021

the concerned district for a minimum prescribed period, which residence is also required to be reflected in official records.

13. The entire claim of the applicant hinges on her assertion of long- standing residence in District Jammu. However, for district cadre recruitment, statutory eligibility cannot be founded on subjective assertions or collateral documents, but must strictly conform to the requirements prescribed under the governing statute.

14. The Permanent Resident Certificate produced by the applicant clearly indicates District Rajouri as the residential district of her husband. Once the statutory document itself does not support the claim of residence in District Jammu, the Selection Board was legally justified in treating the applicant as ineligible.

15. This Tribunal is of the considered view that administrative certainty and uniformity in public recruitment would collapse if statutory documents are substituted by individual claims of residence based on miscellaneous material.

16. The contention that the PRC should not be treated as conclusive proof is misconceived. District cadre recruitment necessarily requires an by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: TA 826/2021

objective and uniform standard. The PRC fulfills that role and has been consistently recognized as the decisive document.

17. Accepting the applicant’s plea would amount to rewriting recruitment rules and introducing discretion where none is contemplated, which is impermissible in law.

18. Even assuming, arguendo, that the applicant was otherwise eligible, it is undisputed that she secured only 41.9775 marks, whereas the last selected Open Merit candidate secured 58.2004 marks. The gap is substantial.

19. It is settled law that mere participation in a selection process or inclusion in a merit list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, particularly when the candidate does not fall within the zone of selection.

20. Thus, on merit alone, the applicant cannot claim any enforceable right.

21. Equality under Articles 14 and 16 does not mean negative equality or relaxation of statutory eligibility in favour of an individual. Uniform application of rules to all candidates constitutes equality in its true sense.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: TA 826/2021

22. The applicant has failed to demonstrate any discrimination or hostile treatment vis-à-vis similarly situated candidates. The action of the respondents is rule-based, uniform, and non-arbitrary.

23. The Tribunal is conscious of the limited scope of judicial review in matters of recruitment. Courts and Tribunals do not sit as appellate authorities over selection decisions unless a clear violation of statutory provisions, mala fides, or perversity is established.

24. In the present case, no such infirmity is discernible. Interference would amount to substituting judicial wisdom for statutory mandate, which is impermissible.

25. For the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that: a) the applicant failed to satisfy the statutory eligibility criteria for District Cadre Jammu; b) the reliance placed by the Selection Board on the Permanent Resident Certificate is legally sound; c) the applicant was otherwise not within the zone of selection on merit; and d) no arbitrariness, illegality, or constitutional violation is made out.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: TA 826/2021

26. Accordingly, the Transfer Application No. 826/2021 is dismissed. The impugned communication dated 24.11.2017 does not warrant interference. No order as to costs.

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

Judicial Member

/harshit/

Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV