When Required Experience For Post Has No Nexus With Qualification, It Can Be Gained Before Or After Obtaining Qualification: J&K High Court

The court added,

“.. However, where the experience prescribed is capable of being acquired even without a particular educational qualification, in such a situation the experience acquired prior to acquiring the educational/professional qualification can hold good”

This principle was reaffirmed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, while dismissing a petition challenging the appointment of a Junior Craft Instructor in Carpet Weaving.

Background of the Case:

The controversy arose from Advertisement Notification issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board (SSB), inviting applications for the post of Junior Instructor in the craft of Carpet Weaving in Bandipora district. The eligibility criteria for the post required candidates to be matriculates with ten years of experience in the respective craft, subject to a practical test.

Sajad Ahmad Bhat, the petitioner, and Mehraj Ahmad Dar (respondent) both applied for the post and participated in the selection process. The petitioner secured 25.2000 points, while the respondent scored 39.0667 points, and was accordingly placed on the waiting list as one Mr. Abid Hussain Malla was initially selected. However, when Malla opted for another post Senior Craft Instructor in the same trade the vacancy was filled from the waiting list, resulting in the appointment of respondent No. 5.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed two writ petitions, later transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 primarily on the ground that he lacked the prescribed ten years of experience. These petitions were dismissed by the Tribunal on merit, leading the petitioner to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution and approach the High Court.

Court's Observations:

Justice Sanjeev Kumar, authoring the judgment for the bench meticulously addressed the core contention that the respondent could not have gained ten years of experience by 2012, having passed matriculation in 2006. The petitioner argued that accepting such experience amounted to recognizing pre-matriculation experience acquired while still a child.

Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the eligibility clause did not establish any direct connection between the required experience and the educational qualification of matriculation. Since Carpet Weaving is a traditional household trade in several Kashmiri communities, the experience can validly be acquired before, after, or even during school education.

The Court reasoned,

“The experience in Carpet Weaving to be acquired by a person has no nexus or relation with the educational qualification prescribed for the post and, therefore, to say that a candidate to be eligible for the post must acquire ten years' experience after doing matriculation is not the correct understanding and interpretation of the eligibility criteria.”

The Court further explained that it is only in cases where the experience has a direct nexus with the academic qualification such as professional or technical positions that experience must be gained after obtaining the qualification. In this case, both counsels conceded that the required experience was independent of the matriculation qualification.

To fortify its reasoning, the Court noted that the requirement of a practical test in the selection process served as an objective benchmark to assess whether a candidate truly possessed the requisite skill. The petitioner did not dispute that respondent outperformed him in the practical test conducted by the Board with the help of experts. Thus, even if some of the experience was acquired before matriculation, it stood validated through practical demonstration, the court underlined.

Concluding that there was no legal infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal, the Division Bench upheld the appointment of respondent and dismissed the petition. Justice Sanjeev Kumar aptly summed up the verdict by affirming,

“Viewed from any angle, we find no legal infirmity or error in the judgment impugned passed by the Tribunal.”

Case Title: Sajad Ahmad Bhat Vs UT Of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 234

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment