PSC Has No Locus To Defend Selection Process When Candidate Whose Appointment Was Set Aside By CAT Chose Not To Agitate Matter: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the J&K Public Service Commission, holding that a constitutional body had no locus standi in defending a selection which was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), considering the fact that the candidate whose appointment was set aside had not bothered to agitate the issue.

Respondent No. 4 was initially selected for the post, but his selection was challenged before the tribunal by Respondent No. 1 on the grounds that his appointment was made due to favour extended to him by a member of the interview panel who happened to be his teacher.

A bench of Justices Sindhu Sharma and Justice Rahul Bharti observed that Respondent No. 4 had not even bothered to question the said judgment adverse against him, meaning thereby a latent admission on his part that in the viva-voce, where he came to score over Respondent No. 1, a favour was done to him, on which count the Central Administrative Tribunal, CAT Jammu Bench, came to hold the selection of Respondent No. 4 as an outcome of bias operating in his favour.

The court said that the tone and tenor of the grounds of the review petition were as if the earlier writ petition was only dismissed because they had not obtained proper approval to challenge the tribunal's decision. However, the court added, the main reason for dismissal was the unfair selection process, which ought to have been challenged by the one primarily affected by the said judgment.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the competent authority of the Commission, as per the Business Rules, had accorded approval for filing of the writ petition on due consideration of the case.

The court said that even going by the grounds of the review petition, which emphasize being authorized by the competent authority to challenge the impugned judgment, there is no mention therein as to vide which minutes of meeting the so-referred approval of the competent authority for filing the writ petition against the judgment by CAT was taken.

The court added that a communication by the Assistant Law Officer of the petitioner JKPSC to its standing counsel cannot be taken by this court as bearing the decision to file the writ petition against the impugned judgment.

The petitioner had filed the review petition stating that, it being a Constitutional body, has been entrusted with the task of selection of various gazetted posts in J&K, and it was aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the selection made by the petitioner Commission was directed to be set aside.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the Commission has every right and authority to defend its decisions, which includes filing and defending court cases involving such decisions/selections.

The court said that the review petition did not present any valid new points but was simply an attempt to reopen the case, and the same came to be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

Respondent No. 1 challenged the selection of Respondent No. 4 as a Lecturer in Medical Oncology at GMC Jammu. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu, ruled against Respondent No. 4, canceling his selection and directing the authorities to consider Respondent No. 1 for the post.

Respondent No. 4 and the J&K Government did not challenge this ruling. However, the J&K Public Service Commission (J&K PSC) filed a writ petition to overturn the CAT's decision. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that J&K PSC had no legal standing to challenge the CAT's judgment, especially since Respondent No. 4 himself did not appeal.

The JKPSC thereafter filed a review petition against the court's dismissal, repeating previous arguments while adding some new ones.

APPEARANCE:

F. A. Natnoo, Advocate For Petitioners

Case-Title: Dr. Rajeev Gupta vs U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 132

Click Here To Read/Download Order