After Claims Rejected For Delay, CAT Srinagar Directs Reconsideration Of Two Constable Applicants’ ITI-Marks Claims Within 8 Weeks

In brief

The question

Whether the applicants’ claims for additional marks and consequential consideration for appointment should be reconsidered in light of the earlier High Court and Supreme Court decisions

The court held

The Tribunal did not rule on whether the applicants were entitled to the additional marks or appointment.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to treat the T.A., together with the applicants’ representations, as a representation and decide their claims in accordance with law, considering the merits, eligibility, and relevant High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

A speaking and reasoned order was to be issued within eight weeks after service of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The T.A. and any connected M.A.s were disposed of.

01Facts

The applicants sought appointment as Constables pursuant to a 2010 recruitment notice. They claimed entitlement to two additional marks for their ITI qualifications under the advertised selection criteria.

¶ 4–10

In earlier proceedings, the High Court had directed that qualifying diploma certificates be considered for the additional marks; the Division Bench dismissed the State’s appeals, and the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s SLP.

¶ 4–10

The applicants later obtained a direction in their own writ petition requiring consideration of their claims, but the respondents rejected them by order dated 29 August 2018, citing delay and laches.

¶ 4–10

The matter was transferred from the High Court to the Tribunal in 2020; after other original petitioners were dismissed for non-prosecution, only these two applicants remained.

¶ 1–2

02Issues

i.Whether the applicants’ claims for additional marks and consequential consideration for appointment should be reconsidered in light of the earlier High Court and Supreme Court decisions

¶ 3, 9, 13

ii.Whether the Tribunal should determine the merits of the applicants’ entitlement or direct the respondents to consider their claims through a reasoned decision

¶ 11–13

03Law Applied

The Tribunal identified no statute or substantive legal test for determining the applicants’ entitlement and did not decide the merits.

¶ 13

It directed the respondents to consider the applicants’ claims in accordance with law, taking into account the merits, eligibility, and the cited decisions of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and the Supreme Court.

¶ 13

The operative requirement was that the decision be made by a speaking and reasoned order within the prescribed period.

¶ 13

04Reasoning

The Tribunal noted the applicants’ claim that similarly situated candidates had received the additional marks and that their own claims had been rejected for delay, despite earlier judicial directions and decisions.

¶ 8–9

However, at the applicants’ counsel’s request, it disposed of the matter without commenting on the merits.

¶ 10–13

Rather than resolve the dispute over delay, recognition of the institute, or eligibility, it required the respondents to assess those matters and the relevant prior judgments in a reasoned decision.

¶ 10–13