### Administrative Delay Cannot Defeat Appointment Rights of Candidates Successfully Selected on Merit and Documentation Verification

The applicant, Amit Sharma, applied for the post of Junior Assistant in the Revenue Department (District Cadre Poonch) under Advertisement Notice No. 06 of 2015

He qualified for the type test with a speed of 60 wpm and was placed at Serial No. 1 in the merit list for the Open Merit category

While other candidates were appointed on 26.10.2016, the applicant’s recommendation was withheld subject to verification of his graduation degree (private degree from Kanpur University) and his residential status

Despite an interim order by the J&K High Court in 2017 directing consideration of his case, the J&K Services Selection Board (JKSSB) only decided to release his recommendation in January 2022

The General Administration Department (GAD) subsequently issued circulars on 30.01.2022 and 03.02.2022, ordering the withdrawal of all posts referred prior to 31.10.2019 where selections had not been finalized or were under litigation

1. Whether the GAD communication dated 03.02.2022, regarding the withdrawal of posts, can be applied to a selection process that had already culminated in a final select list prior to 2019

2. Whether an administrative delay in verifying documents can be used as a ground to deny appointment to a meritorious candidate

The Tribunal applied the constitutional principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality of opportunity in public employment and protection against arbitrary state action

It relied on the established principle that while a selected candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment, the State cannot act arbitrarily once a selection process is concluded

Furthermore, it emphasized that administrative delays attributable to the State cannot defeat the legitimate claims of a candidate selected on merit

The Tribunal reasoned that the GAD communication dated 03.02.2022 did not apply to the applicant because his selection process was "finalized" when the select list was issued in 2016, long before the 2019 cutoff

The applicant’s name was already on the list, and the withholding was only for "limited verification"

The Tribunal noted that the JKSSB itself found the applicant eligible in its 197th meeting and recommended his exclusion from the withdrawal order, indicating that the initial objections regarding his degree and residence were unsubstantiated

To allow the withdrawal of the post at this stage would be to punish the applicant for the respondents' own failure to complete verification in a timely manner

Consequently, the Tribunal found the denial of appointment to be arbitrary and discriminatory as compared to other candidates from the same advertisement who were already serving

It held that the applicant is entitled to the appointment. The respondents were directed to: (i) release the withheld recommendation and issue an appointment order within three months; and (ii) grant the applicant notional appointment and seniority from the date his peers were appointed in 2016

The holding restricted monetary benefits to a "no work, no pay" basis, granting actual salary only from the date of his actual joining