Government cannot frustrate judicial process by mechanically withdrawing posts under litigation.

Dr. Ashish Kumar Sharma, the applicant, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Applied Mathematics under the Open Merit category in response to Advertisement Notification No. 10-PSC (DR-P) of 2017 dated 27.10.2017, issued by the J&K Public Service Commission.

He participated in the interview on 31.01.2019 and claimed to have submitted details of nine research papers published in UGC-approved journals, entitling him to maximum marks for research publications.

The selection result, declared on 07.03.2019, showed only one post filled under the Open Merit category, with two remaining vacant.

The applicant was not selected, having secured 53.79 marks out of 100, which was below the 55% qualifying benchmark for the Open Merit category.

The applicant alleged that the Selection Committee awarded him only two marks instead of four for his nine research publications, leading to his non-selection.

He submitted a representation on 09.03.2019 for reconsideration.

Due to inaction, he filed SWP No. 574/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court, which, on 20.03.2019, issued an interim order directing respondents not to re-advertise one post and to consider redrawing his merit for research publications.

This writ petition was subsequently transferred to the A.T. as TA No. 3068/2020.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the Government issued Order No. GAD-MTGORBIV/200/2021-09-GAD dated 03.02.2022, withdrawing all posts referred to recruiting agencies prior to 31.10.2019 where selections were not finalized or litigation was pending.

Aggrieved, the applicant filed OA No. 356/2022 seeking to quash this government order regarding the Assistant Professor posts.

The respondents contested, stating the selection was per rules, the applicant failed to meet the 55% benchmark, and the government order was a policy decision.

Whether the J&K Public Service Commission failed to properly consider and award full marks for the applicant's research publications in the selection process for Assistant Professor, Applied Mathematics.

Whether the Government Order dated 03.02.2022, withdrawing posts referred to recruiting agencies, can be applied to defeat the applicant's claim where litigation was pending and an interim protection order existed.

The court primarily relied on the principle that judicial interference in expert bodies' assessments is justified when the decision-making process is arbitrary, involves non-consideration of relevant material, or fails to follow prescribed rules.

It also implicitly applied the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the principle that administrative actions frustrating judicial processes during the pendency of litigation are unsustainable.

The court implicitly acknowledged the need for compliance with interim directions issued by higher judicial bodies and the requirement for due evaluation of candidate credentials as per advertised criteria.

The court noted that the respondents admitted that two out of three Open Merit posts remained vacant and failed to clearly demonstrate that all nine of the applicant's UGC-approved research publications were duly examined and evaluated according to the prescribed criteria for awarding marks.

The court found that the respondents' failure to reconsider the applicant's representation, despite the interim direction from the High Court to "consider redrawing the merit of the applicant with regard to research publications," indicated improper reconsideration.

It concluded that this failure, coupled with the lack of clear evidence of proper evaluation, constituted an arbitrary decision-making process justifying intervention.

Furthermore, the court held that the subsequent Government Order dated 03.02.2022, withdrawing posts, could not mechanically defeat a claim already sub-judice with an existing interim protection, as such an action would frustrate the judicial process.

It directed the respondents to reconsider and re-evaluate the applicant's research publications strictly according to the applicable selection criteria of Notification No. 10-PSC (DR-P) of 2017 dated 27.10.2017.

If, upon re-evaluation, the applicant secures the required benchmark marks and falls within the zone of selection, the respondents are to declare him selected and issue the necessary recommendation and appointment order for one post of Assistant Professor in Applied Mathematics under the Open Merit category.

The court also specifically directed that the one post protected by the High Court's interim order shall not be treated as withdrawn for the purpose of implementing this judgment, with the entire exercise to be completed within three months.