Naresh Kumar vs D/o Animal & Sheep Husbandry Ut Of J&k on 31 December 2025

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.397/2017 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.6554/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

a) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the Corrigendum issued vide Notification No. 02 of 2016 dated 18.06.2016 to the extent the posts of Attendant under SC category have been reduced from 02 to 01 in the breakup of posts advertised vide Advertisement Notification No.01 of 2016 by shifting the same to the other reserved category in violation of reservation rules.

b) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the select list, pursuant to Advertisement Notification No.01 of 2016 dated 17.06.2016 for the post of Attendant, Animal Husbandry Department District Reasi, to the extent, the respondent No. 5 (who has secured 76.49 points which are higher than 74.72 points secured by respondent No.4 the last candidate under open merit category) has been placed in the SC list and respondent No.4 at S. No. 9 under Open merit/RBA category, whereas as per the merit of respondent No.5, he should have been placed at S.No.7 in the OM category as OM/SC candidate.

c) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the official respondents to earmark 02 posts for SC category out of total 18 posts advertised for the post of Attendant in Animal Husbandry Department, District

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 3 :: TA 6554/2021

Reasi in accordance with The J&K Reservation Rules, 2005, advertised notified vide Advertisement Notification No.01 of 2016 dated 17.06.2016. as were

d) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the official respondents to place respondent No.5 (SC category) at S.No.7 under OM/SC category, by virtue of respondent No. 5's securing higher points than respondent No.4 in open merit category.

e) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus restraining the official respondents from issuing the appointment order of respondent No.5 under SC category and of respondent No.4 under Open Merit category, as Attendant in Animal Husbandry Department, pursuant to Advertisement Notification No.01 of 2016 dated 17.06.2016.

f) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Attendant in Animal Husbandry Department, District Reasi under SC category pursuant to Advertisement Notification No.01 of 2016 dated 17.06.2016.

g) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper.

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. 397/2017, which was originally instituted before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and, upon constitution of this Tribunal, stood transferred and registered as

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: TA 6554/2021

T.A. No. 6554/2021. The applicant seeks to assail the corrigendum dated 18.06.2016 and the consequent provisional selection list dated 27.12.2016 issued pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2016 for recruitment to Class-IV posts (Attendant) in the Animal Husbandry Department, District Reasi. b) The applicant claims to be a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and asserts eligibility for appointment to the post of Attendant under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. Vide Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2016 dated 17.06.2016, the Chief Animal Husbandry Officer, Reasi, invited applications from eligible permanent resident candidates of District Reasi for filling up Class-IV posts of Attendant and Orderly in the prescribed pay scale. It was specifically provided that candidates belonging to the SC category could apply from any district of the State, notwithstanding the district cadre nature of the posts. c) Initially, the advertisement notified a category-wise break-up wherein two posts of Attendant were earmarked for the SC category. However, on the very next day, a corrigendum dated

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: TA 6554/2021

18.06.2016 was issued, whereby the category-wise distribution of posts was modified. In terms of the said corrigendum, one post earlier earmarked for the SC category was shifted to the ALC category, thereby reducing the number of SC posts from two to one. Simultaneously, the distribution of posts under Open Merit and RBA categories was also altered. d) The applicant, claiming to belong to the SC category and being otherwise eligible, applied for the post of Attendant within the stipulated time. He participated in the selection process, including the interview conducted between 20.12.2016 and 22.12.2016, pursuant to Notification No. 09 of 2016 dated 07.12.2016. Upon completion of the selection process, a provisional select list was issued vide Notification No. 10 of 2016 dated 27.12.2016, wherein respondent No. 5 was shown selected against the sole post reserved for the SC category, while the applicant was placed at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list under the same category. The post earmarked for ALC category was shown as unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: TA 6554/2021

e) The grievance of the applicant is twofold. Firstly, it is contended that the reduction of SC posts from two to one by way of corrigendum is contrary to the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, particularly Rule 5(1), which prescribes roster points for SC category at serial numbers 3, 15, 27, 39 and so on. According to the applicant, out of 18 posts of Attendant, two posts ought to have been reserved for the SC category, and the action of shifting one SC post to ALC category amounts to unlawful curtailment of statutory reservation. f) Secondly, the applicant contends that respondent No. 5, though belonging to the SC category, secured 76.49 points, which are higher than the marks obtained by certain candidates selected under the Open Merit category, including respondent No. 4, who secured 74.72 points. It is argued that in terms of the settled principles of reservation law and as demonstrated by the treatment accorded to candidates belonging to ST and RBA categories who secured higher merit, respondent No. 5 ought to have been shifted to the Open Merit category at his appropriate place. Had such shifting been done, a vacancy would have

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: TA 6554/2021

arisen in the SC category, entitling the applicant, who was first in the waiting list, to selection. g) The applicant further asserts that despite issuance of a legal notice and highlighting these irregularities, no corrective action was taken by the authorities, compelling him to approach the Court seeking quashment of the corrigendum and select list to the extent impugned, and for a direction to reserve two posts for SC category and appoint him against the resultant vacancy.

4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: - a) The respondents have filed a detailed reply contesting the Transfer Application and have raised preliminary objections as well as factual defences. At the outset, it is contended that the application is misconceived, devoid of merit, and does not disclose any infringement of fundamental, statutory, or legal rights of the applicant. It is pleaded that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the applicant and that the application is liable to be dismissed in limine. b) The respondents further allege that the applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and has attempted to

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: TA 6554/2021

mislead the Court by selective and incorrect interpretation of the reservation rules. According to the respondents, the applicant has suppressed material facts, rendering the application liable to dismissal on the ground of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. c) On facts, it is submitted that Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2016 dated 17.06.2016 was issued by the Chief Animal Husbandry Officer, Reasi, strictly in accordance with the Special Recruitment Rules notified vide SRO 202 of 2015. The corrigendum dated 18.06.2016 was issued to correct the category-wise distribution of posts in accordance with the reservation roster maintained under SRO 294 of 2005. It is specifically pleaded that the reservation roster is a running roster and does not restart with each advertisement. Since 30 posts had already been utilized prior to the present recruitment, the roster for the 18 advertised posts commenced from Serial No. 31 and extended up to Serial No. 48. Within this roster segment, only one post fell to the share of the SC category at roster point No. 39.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: TA 6554/2021

d) The respondents assert that the corrigendum was not arbitrary but was issued to bring the advertisement in conformity with the statutory roster position. It is denied that any post reserved for SC category was illegally diverted. Rather, it is pleaded that the initial advertisement contained an inadvertent error which was duly corrected by the corrigendum. e) With regard to the claim of the applicant that respondent No. 5 should have been shifted to the Open Merit category, the respondents submit that there is no provision under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralisation and Recruitment) Act, 2010, permitting shifting of an SC category candidate belonging to an outside district to the Open Merit category in district cadre posts. The respondents distinguish the cases of candidates belonging to ST and RBA categories by asserting that their shifting was permissible within the applicable statutory framework, whereas the same principle cannot be mechanically applied to the applicant’s case. f) It is further submitted that the applicant was placed in the waiting list strictly on the basis of merit and availability of posts, and mere placement in the waiting list does not confer

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: TA 6554/2021

any indefeasible right to appointment. The respondents maintain that the entire selection process was conducted fairly, transparently, and in strict adherence to the governing rules, and that the applicant was not selected solely on account of his comparatively lower merit vis-à-vis the selected candidate. g) In view of the aforesaid submissions, the respondents pray for dismissal of the Transfer Application, contending that no illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of reservation rules is made out warranting interference by this Tribunal.

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

6. The present Transfer Application has its genesis in SWP No. 397/2017, which stood transferred to this Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 6554/2021. The applicant calls in question the corrigendum dated 18.06.2016 issued in partial modification of Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2016 dated 17.06.2016 for Class-IV posts (Attendant) in Animal Husbandry Department, District Reasi, and also assails the provisional select list dated 27.12.2016 to the extent respondent No. 5 was shown selected against the Scheduled

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: TA 6554/2021

Caste (SC) category and the applicant was placed at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list of SC category.

7. The reliefs prayed, in substance, are: (i) quashment of the corrigendum dated 18.06.2016 insofar as it reduced SC posts (Attendant) from two to one by shifting one post to another reserved category; (ii) quashment/modification of the select list so as to shift respondent No. 5 from SC to Open Merit (OM) on the ground of higher merit than certain OM selectees; (iii) consequential selection/appointment of the applicant under SC category by treating SC posts as two and/or by creating a vacancy in SC by shifting respondent No. 5 to OM.

8. The factual matrix is largely undisputed. Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2016 dated 17.06.2016 was issued by the Chief Animal Husbandry Officer, Reasi, inviting applications for Class-IV posts (Attendant/Orderly). It was mentioned that for SC reserved posts candidates from any district of the State could apply. A corrigendum dated 18.06.2016 was issued modifying category-wise break-up of Attendant posts, whereby SC posts were shown as one instead of two, with the shifted post reflected under ALC category. Interviews were held in December 2016, and provisional select list was issued on

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: TA 6554/2021

27.12.2016 wherein respondent No. 5 stood selected in SC category and applicant was placed first in the SC waiting list; ALC post remained unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates.

9. The applicant’s principal submissions are: (a) under the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005, SC category has 8% reservation; for 18 posts, two posts ought to fall to SC; hence reduction to one is illegal; (b) respondent No. 5 secured 76.49 points, which is higher than certain candidates in OM list (including respondent No. 4 with 74.72 points), hence respondent No. 5 ought to have been placed in OM on merit, thereby creating a vacancy in SC to be filled by the applicant who is first in the SC waiting list; and (c) the selection committee itself applied the principle of “migration to OM” for some reserved- category candidates, therefore denial of similar treatment to respondent No. 5 is arbitrary.

10. Per contra, the respondents oppose the claim and submit that: (i) the corrigendum was issued to correct the roster application, the roster being a running roster; (ii) for the relevant roster segment (posts from S. No. 31 to 48), only one roster point fell for SC at point 39 as 30 posts had already been advertised/utilized earlier; hence SC share in this batch was one; (iii) there is no provision for shifting an out-of-

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: TA 6554/2021

district SC candidate to OM in district cadre posts in view of the decentralization recruitment framework; and (iv) mere placement in waiting list does not confer an enforceable right to appointment.

11. The controversy gives rise to the following questions:  Whether the corrigendum dated 18.06.2016 reducing SC posts from two to one is illegal being contrary to reservation rules/roster?  Whether respondent No. 5, an SC category candidate, could/should have been shifted to OM on the basis of higher merit and whether non-shifting vitiates the select list?  Whether the applicant, being first in the SC waiting list, acquires a right to selection/appointment on the premise of the above challenges?

(i) Validity of corrigendum and roster application

12. The applicant proceeds on a broad proposition that since the SC reservation is 8%, two posts must necessarily be reserved for SC out of 18 posts. This argument is attractive at first blush, but it ignores a crucial and well-accepted principle in reservation implementation: reservations are applied through a roster which, in recruitment practice, is maintained as a running account, and the category

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: TA 6554/2021

distribution for a particular advertisement is governed by the applicable roster points for that recruitment cycle/segment, and not by a straight-line arithmetic applied afresh to each isolated advertisement.

13. The respondents have specifically pleaded that the roster, as per SRO 294 of 2005, is maintained as a running roster from year to year and begins at the point next to the point utilized at the end of the previous cycle; and that since 30 posts had already been advertised earlier, the roster points for the present recruitment of 18 Attendant posts were to be applied from S. No. 31 to S. No. 48, wherein SC had only one roster point at S. No. 39. The corrigendum was issued precisely to align the category break-up with the roster segment applicable to this batch.

14. In service jurisprudence, courts/tribunals ordinarily do not interfere with roster-based distribution unless the roster application is shown to be demonstrably contrary to the governing statutory instrument or is established to be mala fide or colourable. In the present matter, beyond asserting a general quota-based expectation, the applicant has not brought on record any material to dislodge the respondents’ specific roster explanation, namely: earlier utilization of 30 posts and

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: TA 6554/2021

application of roster points 31–48 for the present set. The pleadings on record, therefore, do not justify quashing the corrigendum which was issued as a corrective step to ensure roster conformity.

15. Even otherwise, a corrigendum issued promptly to correct category break-up in consonance with roster, before completion of the process, cannot be presumed illegal merely because it reduces the posts of a category in that specific advertisement, when the roster—being a running account—balances out the category share across the roster cycle.

16. Accordingly, Issue (i) is answered against the applicant: the impugned corrigendum does not warrant interference on the pleadings and material placed before us.

(ii) Shifting of respondent No. 5 to Open Merit on higher merit

17. The next limb of challenge is that respondent No. 5, though an SC candidate, obtained 76.49 points which is higher than some OM selectees, hence he must be placed in OM at the appropriate place, which would create a vacancy in SC for the applicant.

18. The respondents have taken a categorical stand that there is no provision for shifting an SC candidate belonging to an outside district to Open Merit in district cadre posts, in view of the

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 16 :: TA 6554/2021

applicable decentralization recruitment regime. This defence is not a mere technicality; it goes to the heart of district-cadre recruitment. The advertisement itself reflects the district specificity for Reasi and only relaxes district constraint for SC applicants to allow them to apply against reserved posts. That limited relaxation cannot automatically be expanded to claim an entitlement for an out-of- district SC candidate to be adjusted in OM positions which are meant for district cadre candidates.

19. The applicant attempts to draw parity from the fact that some reserved category candidates (e.g., ST/RBA) were shifted to OM on merit. That submission, however, is insufficient to create an enforceable claim in the absence of a demonstrated legal right and in the face of a pleaded statutory bar/limitation. Parity cannot operate in vacuum; it operates within the same legal framework and eligibility conditions. If the OM pool is district-specific, then a candidate who is permitted to compete for reserved posts across districts cannot, by that permission alone, claim entry into OM district quota, unless the rules clearly allow it. The respondents’ pleaded position on this aspect remains unrebutted by any specific statutory provision cited by the applicant establishing such entitlement.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 17 :: TA 6554/2021

20. Therefore, the argument that respondent No. 5 must be migrated to OM is not accepted. Once that premise fails, the consequential claim of the applicant to occupy the SC slot also fails.

21. Issue (ii) is answered against the applicant.

(iii) Right of a wait-listed candidate and consequential appointment

22. The applicant is placed at Serial No. 1 in the SC waiting list. Even assuming a waiting list exists, it is a settled service principle that mere placement in a waiting list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. A waiting list operates only if a vacancy arises within its validity and subject to the governing rules and the employer’s decision to fill it. In the present matter, the applicant’s claim is entirely contingent upon (a) quashing the corrigendum and restoring SC posts as two, and/or (b) shifting respondent No. 5 to OM. Both foundational challenges have failed for reasons recorded above.

23. Additionally, the select list in question is of December 2016, while the writ petition itself was filed in 2017 and the matter has remained pending for years before being transferred. A challenge to a completed selection, especially where appointments would have followed, requires strong grounds of illegality. Interference after long passage of time, absent clear violation, also carries serious

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 18 :: TA 6554/2021

administrative consequences and disturbs settled positions. On the record before us, such strong grounds are not made out. Issue (iii) is answered against the applicant.

24. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no illegality, perversity, or arbitrariness warranting interference with (i) the corrigendum dated 18.06.2016 aligning category distribution with the running roster, or

(ii) the provisional selection list dated 27.12.2016, to the extent challenged. The claim for shifting respondent No. 5 to OM and consequential appointment of the applicant is also found unsustainable.

25. Accordingly, the Transfer Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

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

Judicial Member

/harshit/

HARSHIT YADAV