A candidate directly affected by recruitment litigation is a proper party for effective adjudication.

The Original Application challenged the University’s notice dated 25 June 2025, by which the original applicant’s candidature was excluded from consideration for the post of Accounts Assistant.

He claimed entitlement to horizontal reservation under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the applicable Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, contending that one post ought to have been reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities out of the 14 advertised vacancies.

By an interim order dated 24 July 2025, the Tribunal directed the respondents to keep one post reserved for the persons-with-disabilities category pending disposal of the Original Application.

Peer Shoaib Shams Qureshi, who had participated in the selection and claimed to have stood at Serial No. 6 in the open-merit list, sought impleadment, stating that his interests could be affected by the Original Application.

He also sought clarification, vacation, or modification of the interim order, particularly because the University had subsequently selected eleven candidates as Apprentice Accounts Assistants under University Order No. 434 (Est.) of 2025 dated 14 August 2025, without including him.

The Tribunal considered both Miscellaneous Applications through the common order.

Whether the proposed intervener had a direct and substantial interest in the selection dispute so as to qualify as a necessary or proper party and be impleaded in the Original Application.

Whether the interim order dated 24 July 2025 should be clarified so that it did not prevent consideration of the proposed intervener’s candidature.

Whether the prayer in M.A. No. 1839/2025 for vacation or modification of the interim reservation order could be decided at that stage without first granting the newly impleaded respondent an opportunity of hearing.

Whether the original applicant was legally entitled to reservation under the disability-reservation framework, including the issues concerning the number of vacancies, horizontal reservation, rounding off, and the 100-point roster.

The Tribunal applied the settled principles governing impleadment: a necessary party is one in whose absence no effective order can be passed, while a proper party is one whose presence enables complete, effective, and adequate adjudication, even if no relief is claimed against that person.

It also considered Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the applicable Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, and Government Order No. 163-JK(SWD) of 2021 concerning horizontal reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities, including the 100-point register and reservation of one vacancy for each block of 25 vacancies.

The original applicant relied on State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari, (2005) 2 SCC 10, regarding rounding off of reservation fractions.

However, the Tribunal expressly left the merits of the reservation controversy open for determination in the Original Application.

The proposed intervener demonstrated a direct and substantial interest because he had participated in the same selection process, claimed a high position in the open-merit list, and alleged that the relief concerning reservation of one post could affect his claim arising from that selection.

The subsequent selection order, which recorded that inter se seniority would be determined according to merit, further reinforced the relevance of his participation to a complete adjudication of the dispute.

Applying the principles of necessary and proper parties, the Tribunal held that his presence would prevent the Original Application from being decided in a manner that directly affected his asserted interests in his absence.

Nevertheless, impleadment did not amount to recognition of an enforceable right to appointment, nor did the Tribunal determine whether his merit position entitled him to appointment or whether the disability-reservation claim was legally sustainable.

The Tribunal clarified that the respondents could consider the candidature of all concerned candidates, including the newly impleaded respondent, in accordance with the recruitment rules and selection record, but could not use that clarification to defeat or render ineffective the interim protection granted on 24 July 2025.

Since the proposed intervener had not been heard when the interim order was passed, his prayer for vacation or modification of that order was deferred until he had an opportunity to file his response and be heard.

The Registry was directed to amend the memo of parties and provide him an opportunity to place his response on record.

The respondents were permitted to consider all candidates’ claims in accordance with law, subject to the final outcome of the Original Application, without treating the clarification as a direction to appoint the newly impleaded respondent or as authority to undermine the interim protection.

M.A. No. 1839/2025 was not decided on merits and was directed to be considered at the appropriate stage after the newly impleaded respondent had been heard.

The Tribunal expressly left open all questions concerning the applicability and computation of horizontal disability reservation, the number of vacancies, the 100-point roster, and the percentage of reservation.

No order as to costs was made.