A candidate with lower merit lacks the right to appointment or to challenge a selected candidate's eligibility.

The applicant applied for the post of Junior Lab Technician (Health Department, District Cadre Kishtwar) under Notification No. 06 of 2013

Respondent No. 3 (Dimpy Shan) was selected and appointed on 28.05.2016

The applicant initially challenged the shortlisting process in SWP No. 89/2015, where the High Court permitted him to interview at his own risk

While the High Court later found the Board’s shortlisting Regulation 28 inconsistent with Rule 14 of the 2010 Rules, it did not quash Respondent No. 3’s appointment as she was not a party

The applicant subsequently filed this application to quash Respondent No. 3's appointment, alleging she possessed a Diploma in Laboratory Technology from a Polytechnic institute not recognized by the State Medical Faculty (SMF)

He further sought a direction for his own appointment

1. Whether Respondent No. 3 was ineligible for appointment due to the alleged non-recognition of her diploma by the State Medical Faculty

2. Whether the applicant, having secured lower merit than the selected candidate, has a legal right to seek appointment by quashing the selection of another

Rule 14(1) of the JK Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010, regarding the 1:5 ratio for oral tests

It relied on Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan (1990) and Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh (2010), establishing that courts cannot sit in appeal over expert selection bodies

It applied the doctrine of estoppel from Madan Lal v. State of JK (1995) and Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar (2017), which holds that candidates who participate in a selection process without protest cannot challenge it after failing

The Tribunal observed that while the applicant challenged the validity of Respondent No. 3’s qualification, the Service Selection Board had already scrutinized the documents and released the recommendation after obtaining necessary clarifications

The Tribunal noted that it cannot substitute its opinion for that of the recruiting agency regarding technical equivalence

Critically, the facts revealed a significant merit gap: the applicant secured 47.7738 marks, whereas the last selected candidate (Respondent No. 3) secured 61.8233 marks

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant was not next in merit, quashing the appointment would not automatically entitle him to the post

It further held that after serving for several years since 2016, settled appointments should not be disturbed absent proof of fraud or patent illegality, neither of which were established

The Tribunal dismissed the Transfer Application

The Tribunal declined to interfere with the appointment of Respondent No. 3, concluding that the applicant failed to prove the process was vitiated by mala fides or that he was the most meritorious candidate entitled to the vacancy