A candidate’s EWS claim must be reconsidered against an available vacancy without disturbing existing appointments.

The applicant participated in the recruitment process for Constables in the 02 Border Battalions of the J&K Police pursuant to notifications dated 9 March 2019 and 11 January 2022.

He possessed certificates under the Pahari Speaking People (PSP) and Economically Weaker Section (EWS) categories and, during the selection process, submitted a request seeking consideration under the EWS category.

The respondents, however, considered him under the PSP category on the ground that his EWS certificate had been issued after the prescribed cut-off date of 2 April 2022.

The applicant secured 56 marks and was placed at Serial No. 592 in the revised merit list. The respondents stated that the PSP cut-off for District Poonch was 81 marks, whereas the EWS cut-off was 48 marks.

The applicant challenged his non-selection under the EWS category, contending that candidates with lower marks had been selected under that category. He sought quashing of the select list insofar as it related to District Poonch and a direction for his selection and appointment.

1. Whether the applicant’s candidature ought to have been considered under the EWS category, notwithstanding that he had earlier been reflected under the PSP category and his EWS certificate was allegedly issued after the prescribed cut-off date?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to have the existing select list quashed or the appointments of selected candidates disturbed on the basis that he had secured higher marks than the EWS cut-off?

3. Whether the respondents could be directed to consider the applicant for appointment against an available vacancy without displacing candidates already selected or appointed?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing applications by aggrieved government employees or prospective appointees before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It applied the recruitment conditions and category-certification requirements applicable to the Constable recruitment, including the prescribed cut-off date for production or validity of the EWS certificate.

The Tribunal also relied on the general principles of judicial review in service matters: arbitrary exclusion of an eligible candidate may be corrected, but relief should ordinarily not unsettle appointments already made or prejudice third parties where the selection process has attained finality.

The directions permitting candidates to change reserved categories and produce the relevant certificates pursuant to S.O. 127 of 2020 were also relevant to assessing the applicant’s request for EWS consideration.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had expressly sought consideration under the EWS category during the selection process and had not raised the claim for the first time after being declared unsuccessful.

Although the respondents had treated his EWS certificate as invalid because it was issued after 2 April 2022, the applicant had secured 56 marks, which was higher than the stated EWS cut-off of 48 marks for District Poonch.

Thus, his claim could not be rejected mechanically merely because he had been reflected under the PSP category.

At the same time, the Tribunal declined to invalidate the select list or disturb appointments already made. It balanced the applicant’s claim against the prejudice that would be caused to selected candidates and the need for finality in recruitment proceedings.

The appropriate relief was therefore to direct consideration of the applicant against an available and legally utilisable vacancy, subject to verification of his EWS eligibility and compliance with all other recruitment conditions.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant for appointment as Constable in the 02 Border Battalions against an available vacancy pertaining to District Poonch, subject to his satisfying all applicable eligibility conditions and the vacancy being legally available for use from the recruitment process in question.

The respondents were required to consider his request for EWS treatment and not reject it solely because he had earlier been shown under the PSP category.

The direction was not to displace or cancel the appointment of any candidate already selected or appointed.

If no current vacancy existed, the applicant’s case could be considered against a vacancy arising from non-joining, resignation, cancellation of candidature or appointment, or any other legally permissible source.

The exercise was to be completed within 12 weeks of receipt of the certified order. Any appointment would operate prospectively from the date of actual appointment, without back wages for the period during which the applicant had not worked.