AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member J
The SWP No.79/2016 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.8482/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) Writ of Certiorari for quashing the revised selection list for the post of class IV in Sericulture Development Department Rajouri published in Amar Ujalla, Hindi Daily issued of 13-01-2016 vide No. DIP/J-8280 dated 12-01-2016 issued by respondent no. 3.
b) Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner against class IV post in the Sericulture Development Department Rajouri under SC category existing at serial no. 42 in the select list issued by respondent no. 3 vide No. DIP/J-5123/2015 dated 03-10-2015 published in Daily Urdu Udhan Jammu issue dated 4-10-2015.
c) Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents to provide one more post of class IV to SC category by deleting from RBA category as an alternative remedy and also to consider select and appoint the petitioner against the same post.
d) For grant of any other relief by way of writ, order, direction or command which the Hon'ble Court deems fit or proper as per the circumstance of the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in HIS pleadings are as follows: -
a) The applicant is a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and a citizen of India, entitled to all constitutional, statutory and service-related benefits applicable in the Union Territory of J&K.
b) Pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 1/ADM/2014 dated 04.08.2014, issued by the Deputy Director, Sericulture Development Department, Rajouri, applications were invited for recruitment to Class-IV posts in the Sericulture Development Department, District Rajouri.
c) The applicant possesses the requisite educational qualifications, having passed Matriculation in the year 2010 and 10+2 in the year 2012 from the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education. He belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category and holds a valid category certificate issued by the competent authority under the applicable Reservation Rules.
d) The applicant applied for the advertised Class-IV post under the SC category and, after scrutiny of applications, wasshortlisted and called for interview. Upon completion of the selection process, a provisional select list was issued vide Order No. DIP/J-5123/2015 dated 03.10.2015, published in the daily newspaper “Udhan”. In the said list, the applicant was shown selected at Serial No. 42 under the SC category.
e) Subsequently, after a lapse of about two months, a revised selection/waiting list was issued vide Notice dated 12.01.2016 and published on 13.01.2016, whereby the name of the applicant was removed from the select list and he was placed in the waiting list. Simultaneously, certain private respondents were shifted across categories, including placement of respondent No. 4 under the SC category.
f) The applicant has assailed the revised selection list primarily on the grounds that:
the revision was made arbitrarily and without jurisdiction;
the Reservation Rules, particularly the roster and horizontal reservation provisions, were misapplied;
excess posts were allocated to the RBA category at the cost of the SC category;
the revised list was issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the applicant, thereby violating principles of natural justice; and
the revision was actuated by mala fides to accommodate less meritorious candidates.
g) On these grounds, the applicant seeks quashing of the revised selection list and a direction for his appointment against the Class-IV post under the SC category, or in the alternative, adjustment of vacancies in accordance with the reservation roster.
The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) At the outset, the respondents submit that the present application is misconceived, devoid of merit, and does not disclose infringement of any legal or fundamental right of the applicant. The applicant has no vested right to appointment merely on inclusion in a provisional selection list.
b) It is further submitted that the applicant has suppressed material facts and has attempted to mislead this Hon’ble Tribunal by projecting an incomplete and distorted version of the selection process. The application is therefore liable to be dismissed in limine for lack of locus standi and absence of any cause of action.
c) On merits, the respondents state that pursuant to the advertisement, 2447 applications were received. As per the prescribed criteria, 225 candidates were shortlisted for interview in the ratio of 1:5 on the basis of pro-rata weightage of educational qualifications. Interviews were conducted by the duly constituted District Level Selection Committee between 18.08.2015 and 20.08.2015.
d) A provisional select/waiting list of candidates was initially prepared and published on 04.10.2015. However, upon scrutiny by the Additional Director, Sericulture Development Department, certain discrepancies and omissions were noticed. It was specifically observed that the selection list was not fully compliant with SRO 375 of 2010, which mandates that 25% of the total selected candidates must be drawn from the waiting list.
e) Accordingly, vide communication dated 01.02.2016, the Additional Director directed rectification of the selection list to ensure conformity with the applicable statutory rules. During this process, a minor clerical error in calculation of the applicant’s qualification weightage was also noticed and corrected.
f) After implementing the directions issued by the competent authority and strictly adhering to SRO 375 of 2010, necessary adjustments were made in the select and waiting lists across various categories. As a result, the applicant, who was earlier shown selected, was placed in the waiting list in accordance with his revised merit position.
g) The final revised select/waiting list, duly approved and signed by all members of the District Level Selection Committee, was published vide Order No. DDSR/Recruit/2015-16/1951-55 dated 16.02.2016. The entire exercise was conducted transparently, fairly and strictly in accordance with law.
h) The respondents categorically deny any allegation of mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of reservation rules. The modifications were necessitated solely to ensure statutory compliance and to protect the rights of all eligible candidates.
i) In view of the above facts and circumstances, the respondents pray that the Transfer Application be dismissed with costs, as being devoid of merit.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The present Transfer Application has been received on transfer from the Hon’ble High Court and is registered as T.A. No. 8482/2021. The applicant has challenged the revised selection list for Class-IV posts in the Sericulture Development Department, District Rajouri, published in January, 2016, and seeks quashment thereof with a consequential direction to appoint him against the SC category post, on the premise that he had earlier figured at Serial No. 42 in the select list published in October, 2015.
In substance, the applicant’s case is that: (i) after his selection in the earlier list, the authority could not have revised the list after about two months; (ii) the revision was arbitrary/mala fide and contrary to reservation/roster; and (iii) the revision was made without granting him hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
The official respondents oppose the T.A. contending, inter alia, that there was no vested right created in favour of the applicant merely because his name appeared in the provisional list; that the selection list was subjected to scrutiny by the competent supervisory authority; and that modifications were directed to ensure compliance with SRO 375 of 2010, which, as per the respondents, mandated that 25% of the total selected candidates shall also be drawn from the waiting list.
They further state that the applicant’s qualification weightage had a minor clerical discrepancy and, after implementing the requisite changes, the applicant came to be placed at Serial No. 44 in the waiting list, and the revised list was thereafter issued.
From the pleadings and record, the controversy essentially boils down to whether the applicant can insist that the earlier published list should be treated as final and immutable, and whether the subsequent revision—stated to have been carried out to ensure statutory compliance and to rectify identified discrepancies—deserves to be interdicted in judicial review.
At the outset, it is well settled that inclusion of a candidate’s name in a select list does not by itself confer an indefeasible right to appointment. Appointment follows only upon completion of the selection process in accordance with the governing rules, verification, availability of posts and issuance of appointment orders by the competent authority. Consequently, a candidate who figures in a provisional list cannot claim appointment as a matter of right, particularly when the employer demonstrates that the selection list required modification to align with statutory provisions and/or to remove errors noticed on scrutiny.
The record, as reflected in the respondents’ stand, shows that: (i) a large number of applications were received; (ii) candidates were shortlisted and interviewed; (iii) a provisional select/waiting list was initially published; and (iv) the list was thereafter scrutinized and observations were communicated by the Additional Director requiring modification in the light of SRO 375 of 2010.
This is not a case where the selection authority has acted in vacuum or on mere whims; rather, the respondents’ version is that the revision was undertaken upon scrutiny by the higher authority and for conformity with the applicable rule position.
The applicant urged that once a list was published, the respondent No. 3 could not revise it “after two months and ten days”, and that such revision was without jurisdiction. This Tribunal is unable to accept the contention in the broad manner in which it is canvassed. Administrative authorities are not only empowered but are also duty-bound to ensure that selections are consistent with the governing statutory rules. If, upon scrutiny, it is found that a published list is inconsistent with the applicable rule framework or contains errors that materially affect ordering/placement, the authority is not compelled to perpetuate illegality. On the contrary, correction in order to bring the selection in line with the rules is an act of rectification, not arbitrariness, provided it is done bona fide and uniformly.
The respondents have specifically pleaded that modifications were directed because SRO 375 of 2010 required that a defined proportion of candidates be drawn from the waiting list and that, after implementing the said requirement, consequential shifts occurred in the select/waiting list across categories, including the applicant being placed at Serial No. 44 in the waiting list. They have further stated that the revised selection/waiting list was then duly issued.
In such circumstances, the Tribunal’s task in judicial review is not to sit as an appellate authority over the selection, but to see whether the revision is vitiated by patent illegality, mala fides, or violation of fundamental procedural safeguards. The applicant’s allegations of mala fides remain unsupported by cogent material. Merely because the revision resulted in displacement of the applicant from the earlier position, mala fides cannot be presumed. A plea of mala fides must be pleaded with particulars and supported by convincing material, which is conspicuously absent here.
The argument of the applicant regarding roster misapplication and “excess” posts being allotted to one category at the cost of another is also stated in a general fashion. While the applicant has made assertions about reservation rules/roster, the record placed before us in the present transferred proceedings does not provide a complete roster computation and category-wise vacancy mapping for the relevant recruitment so as to enable this Tribunal to conclusively hold that the revised list violated the roster or that an SC vacancy was necessarily diverted. In the face of the respondents’ explanation that revision was undertaken to ensure compliance with the governing rule position, this Tribunal cannot, on speculative assertions, re-write the selection list.
Coming to the plea of violation of natural justice, it is true that where an administrative action entails civil consequences and is based on adverse material specifically against an individual, the requirement of fairness may demand opportunity. However, where the action is a general rectification of a selection list to bring it in conformity with rules and to correct errors noticed on scrutiny, the demand of individual pre-decisional hearing to every affected candidate is neither practical nor a mandatory rule in all cases. The applicant’s case, on the respondents’ showing, is not that he was singled out for any misconduct or disqualification; rather, he was repositioned because the list itself was re-worked pursuant to rule compliance, resulting in multiple shifts. Therefore, the plea of being “condemned unheard”, in the factual matrix presented, does not warrant interference with the revised list.
It is also relevant that the respondents have shown that even the applicant’s “qualification weightage” in the earlier list had a minor clerical discrepancy (43.64 shown instead of 43.60). Such rectifications, if genuinely clerical and uniformly applied, cannot be branded as illegal.
In view of the above discussion, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has failed to establish any ground warranting judicial interference with the revised select/waiting list. The challenge is essentially founded on the assumption that the earlier published list created an enforceable right in his favour and that the authority lacked power to rectify the list. Both assumptions are untenable in law.
For the foregoing reasons, the Transfer Application is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.