Court directs consideration of representation against selection list for higher qualification issue.

Suhail Ahmad Laherwal (aged 23) and Nisar Ahmad Bhat (aged 41) (hereinafter referred to as "applicants") applied for the post of Driver following Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2025 dated 27.01.2025.

They participated in all stages of the selection process.

The Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as "respondents") directed shortlisted candidates for the Driver post (UT Cadre, Home Department) to submit an affidavit affirming they possessed the prescribed qualification of minimum Matriculation and maximum 10+2, and did not hold higher qualifications.

Both applicants were shortlisted and had their names appear in the provisional selection list issued vide Notification No. JKSSB-Scry/34/2025-03(E-7793725) dated 29.12.2025; Applicant No. 1 at Srl. No. 36 KMR with 83.750 points, and Applicant No. 2 at Srl. No. 18 KMR with 87.00 points.

The applicants alleged that several candidates included in the provisional selection list possessed higher educational qualifications than the maximum prescribed 10+2, which contravened the eligibility criteria and rendered the provisional selection list legally unsustainable.

The applicants submitted a representation dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure-4) to the respondents, which had not yet been considered.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicants' representation seeking selection for the post of Driver during the recruitment process where candidates with higher qualifications than prescribed were allegedly provisionally selected.

2. Whether the final selection list should be stayed until the applicants' representation is considered.

The court primarily applied the principle of administrative due process, which mandates that authorities like the Jammu & Kashmir Services Selection Board must properly consider representations made by aggrieved parties in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.

It implicitly relies on the principle that recruitment processes must strictly adhere to the terms and conditions outlined in the advertisement notifications and governing recruitment rules, particularly concerning eligibility criteria, and that any deviation from these can render the process legally unsustainable.

The Court acknowledged the applicants' contention that candidates with qualifications beyond the maximum prescribed 10+2 were included in the provisional selection list, thereby violating the express eligibility criteria outlined in the Advertisement Notice.

The court noted that the applicants had submitted a representation dated 28.01.2026 (Annexure-4) to the respondents challenging this alleged discrepancy, which had not been addressed.

Without delving into the merits of the applicants' claims, the court determined that the respondents had a legal obligation to properly consider the representation made by the applicants, particularly in light of the notification for selection.

This approach ensures that the respondents adhere to administrative fairness and review their decision-making process concerning the eligibility criteria and selection list.

This consideration must be in light of Notification No. JKSSB-Scry/34/2025-03 (E-7793725) Dated 29.12.2025, and strictly in accordance with applicable rules/regulations, provided there is no other legal impediment.

The respondents are required to pass a speaking and reasoned order within ten days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order and provide a copy to the applicants.

Furthermore, the court ordered that the final selection list shall not be published until such consideration is complete, and in any event, for a period of ten days.

The O.A. No: 133/2026 was disposed of accordingly, with no orders as to costs.