Mudasir Bashir Sheergojri vs HOME DEPARTMENT on 3 November 2026

1. The facts of the case are that the respondent Board, vide Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2024 dated 16.07.2024, invited applications for the post of Constable in the Home Department. The applicant, being eligible applied within the time under the OBC Category. The prescribed selection process comprised a written examination, Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Endurance Test (PET).

2. Thereafter, the applicant appeared in the written examination and he reflected at Serial No. 107 of the Final Select List dated 20.02.2026 and thereafter, his candidature was recommended to the Home Department for further action. As stated, after the recommendations of the J&K Services Selection Board, an Adjustment Order No. 671 of 2026 dated 21.03.2026 was issued by the Office of the Additional Director General of Police, Armed Police Headquarters, Jammu and Kashmir, and the applicant was adjusted in 18th Battalion, Indian Reserve Battalion (IR18), Jammu and Kashmir Armed Police, at Serial No. 1521 of Annexure "A" appended to the said order. It was directed in the order that all selected and adjusted candidates shall report before the concerned Commandants along with their original testimonials and other relevant documents, and further directed the concerned Commandants to issue formal appointment orders after observing all requisite formalities, including verification of character and antecedents in accordance with the applicable Government Orders governing such verification.

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the applicant immediately reported before the Commandant, 18th Battalion, Indian Reserve Battalion, submitted all original testimonials, educational certificates and other documents as required by the respondents along with the prescribed Employee Verification Form.

4. The applicant after qualifying the selection stages was expecting that the formal appointment order would be issued in his favour. However, to the utter surprise of the applicant, while other similarly situated candidates, who had also been selected and adjusted pursuant to the same adjustment order, were issued formal appointment orders by the respective Commandants, the applicant alone was denied the same without any written communication, order or reason.

5. Being aggrieved, the applicant submitted representation dated 08.09.2026 and 21.09.2026 seeking issuance of formal appointment order in his favour. He, thereafter, filed an RTI application seeking disclosure of the reasons for withholding the formal appointment order. However, despite that the respondents failed to communicate any decision to the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the officials of the respondent department orally informed the applicant that the formal appointment order had not been issued because his brother is facing trial in a criminal case and, therefore, the requisite security clearance had allegedly not been granted. However, he submits that the applicant has an absolutely clean and unblemished record. He has never been implicated in any criminal case, FIR, preventive proceedings or any unlawful activity and there exists no allegation touching upon his integrity, character, conduct or antecedents. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in withholding the applicant's formal appointment order solely on account of the alleged criminal case involving his brother is wholly arbitrary, irrational and legally unsustainable.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ishtiyaq Ahmad Mir, submits that the applicant has a right in law to know as to why he is being deprived of his right to appointment once he has been selected by the competent authority in pursuance to a valid selection process. He submitted that fairness in every action is the hallmark of justice and any action of the respondents depriving the applicant of his right, which has accrued in his favour, has to be justified in law and the same has to be backed by reason which is the heart and soul of every action. In support of his contention the learned counsel has referred to catena of judgments as under: -

(i) Manyata Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2015 (10) SCC 198;

(ii) Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.; 2016 (8) SCC 471; and

(iii) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ramashanar Raghuvanshi & Another; 1983 (2) SCC 145.

(iv) Mohd. Amir Malik v. Union of India & Ors. (WP(C) No. 21/2023)

8. In a democracy we are governed by the Rule of Law and no authority, howsoever higher he may be, cannot be permitted to ignore the constitutional provisions. The fundamental rights, which form bedrock of Rule of Law cannot be permitted to be tampered with in any manner as has been averred by the applicant in the instant O.A. The competent authority is within its powers to act in case there is any cogent reason based on material against the applicant to deprive the applicant of his right for consideration of his appointment but the same has to be in accordance with law and not on any flimsy ground.

9. In this connection, we may refer to the character ‘Jean Valjean’ in Victor Hugo’s novel ‘Les Miserables’, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book ‘Due Process of Law’, relevant portion of which reads as under – “..............It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language and not in Welsh. They came up to London and invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced to prison for three months by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed:- “I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell’s third point. He says that the sentence were excessive. I do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the judge to show – and to show to all students everywhere – that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at the course of justice in this land – and I speaking both for England and Wales – they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them support the law and not strike it down. But now what is to be done? The law has been vindicated by the sentences which the judge passed on Wednesday of last week. He has shown that law and order must be maintained, and will be maintained. But on this appeal, things are changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They have appealed to this Court and shown respect for it. They have already served a week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards – of the poets and the singers – more melodious by far than our rough English tongue. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong – very wrong – in going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy on them. We should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed.”

10. Heard.

11. Issue notice upon the respondents. Mr. Rais ud din Ganaie, learned DAG, appears and accepts notices for the respondents, who is granted four weeks' time to file his response.

12. In our humble estimation, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life. As such, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, in our opinion, prima facie a case for indulgence is made out. Accordingly, subject to objections of the other side and till the next date of hearing, it is ordered that the post on which the applicant has been selected, though not appointed, in pursuance to Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2024 dated 16.07.2024, shall not be advertised or filled up by any mode.

13. List on 25.02.2027. Prasant Kumar Member (A) M. S. Latif Member (J)

Abhishek Punia ( court master )