Denying recruitment benefits to similarly situated candidates who challenged identical examination defects violates Articles 14 and 16.

The applicants applied for the post of Naib Tehsildar following advertisements issued in 2002, 2005, and 2008

The written examination, conducted in 2009 after significant delays, was allegedly marred by defective questions

The applicants challenged the process via SWP No. 1335/2009 and SWP No. 2094/2009

Meanwhile, in a related case (Hamid Ullah Dar v. State of J&K, SWP No. 487/2009), the Srinagar Bench of the High Court found 23 questions were incorrect and directed the respondents to either re-evaluate or appoint the petitioners

On 07.11.2016, the High Court directed that the applicants herein receive the same benefits if they were "similarly situated"

However, the respondents rejected the applicants’ claims via Government Order No. 01-Rev of 2017, asserting they were not similarly circumstanced and that the Selection Board was functus officio

The matter was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal

1. Whether the applicants were "similarly situated" to the beneficiaries of the Hamid Ullah Dar judgment and thus entitled to the same relief

2. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicants' claims via Government Order No. 01-Rev of 2017 was arbitrary and discriminatory

The Tribunal primarily applied the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

It relied on the principle of uniformity in the implementation of judicial decisions, holding that the state cannot treat similarly situated persons differently based on hyper-technical distinctions

Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the doctrine of functus officio, noting that administrative finality cannot be used to deny consequential relief arising from judicial directions that correct underlying illegalities in a selection process

The Tribunal reasoned that the defects in the examination—specifically the 23 incorrect questions—were inherent to the examination itself and not specific to any individual candidate

Consequently, anyone who participated in that examination and challenged it diligently was "similarly situated"

The Tribunal clarified that the High Court's use of the term "similarly situated" was intended to exclude "fence-sitters" who only approached the court after the judgment was delivered; since the applicants had filed their writ petitions as early as 2009, they were vigilant litigants entitled to relief

The Tribunal further observed that the executive branch cannot "sit in appeal" over judicial findings by creating artificial distinctions to deny benefits

The respondents' plea of being functus officio was rejected because the relief sought was a direct consequence of a court-mandated correction of a defective selection process

It held that the applicants were entitled to the same benefits as those granted in the Hamid Ullah Dar case

The respondents were directed to appoint the applicants to the post of Naib Tehsildar against available direct recruitment vacancies within three months

The applicants were granted notional seniority and notional pay fixation from the date their immediate juniors were appointed, with actual monetary benefits payable prospectively from the date of their appointment