Innocent appointees cannot be displaced for the recruiting agency’s error; supernumerary posts may balance the equities.

The applicants were appointed as Assistant Professors in Statistics in 2017 on JKPSC recommendations.

Following a complaint that they had wrongly received marks for research publications forming part of their Ph.D. theses, the JKPSC reviewed the matter, acknowledged an error in awarding weightage under Rule 51 of its 1980 Rules, and indicated that the private respondents were more meritorious.

After earlier notices issued by the JKPSC were quashed, the Higher Education Department issued a fresh show-cause notice to the applicants on 2 August 2023.

The applicants challenged that notice before the Tribunal.

They maintained that they had committed no fraud or misrepresentation and had served since 2017; the private respondents sought recognition of their superior merit and appointment.

The Tribunal ultimately declined to quash the notice but directed further action concerning the applicants’ appointments and possible supernumerary posts.

1. Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the Department’s show-cause notice while proceedings remained pending.

2. Whether the applicants’ appointments should be protected, or otherwise addressed, given the alleged error in the selection process, the private respondents’ superior merit, and the applicants’ lack of fraud or misrepresentation.

A show-cause notice ordinarily does not itself infringe a right or give rise to a cause of action, because the authority may drop proceedings after considering the recipient’s response; the Tribunal relied on Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana and related authorities for this principle.

The selection dispute concerned the award of weightage under Rule 51 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980.

The Tribunal also relied on Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and the cited decisions in Radhe Shyam Yadav, Sivanandan C.T. and Vivek Kaisth in considering the position of appointees who had served for years without fraud, misrepresentation, favouritism or nepotism on their part.

It recognised that public appointments must be assessed by merit and law, while equitable considerations may be relevant where an error is attributable to the recruiting authority.

The Tribunal found no basis to quash the show-cause notice: it afforded the applicants an opportunity to explain, and its terms did not establish a predetermined outcome.

At the same time, it found that the private respondents were more meritorious, while the applicants had served since 2017 and were not shown to have procured their appointments through fraud, misrepresentation, favouritism or nepotism.

Balancing those circumstances, the Tribunal left the Department free to proceed in accordance with law and merit, but directed it to consider creating two supernumerary posts, if required, to accommodate the applicants.

It also required inter se seniority to follow selection merit.

It directed the appointing authority to proceed in accordance with law and merit and to create two supernumerary posts, if required, for the applicants; seniority was to be determined by merit.

The exercise was to be completed within two months of service of the certified order.

The O.A. and connected applications were disposed of without an order as to costs.