Facts
The applicant applied for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (English) pursuant to a notification dated 04.07.2016 issued by the Lakshadweep Administration
Source reference: p.2He was placed 4th in the select list
Source reference: p.2His inclusion was unsuccessfully challenged by a waitlisted candidate in OA/899/2017 and subsequently in OP(CAT) 167/2019, where the Hon’ble High Court confirmed that the applicant's degree was recognized during the relevant period
Source reference: p.2While the first three candidates in the list were appointed, the applicant was denied appointment despite the litigation in his favor
Source reference: p.2The respondents resisted the appointment citing the judgment in The Administrator and another v. Hidaya N.P. and others [OP(CAT) 204/2024], which had set aside a 2019 notification providing 100% reservation to local candidates as violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution
Source reference: p.3-4Issues
1. Whether the judgment in The Administrator v. Hidaya N.P., which invalidated 100% local reservation in a 2019 notification, applies retrospectively to a selection process initiated under a 2016 notification
Source reference: p.3-42. Whether the applicant is entitled to an appointment order and consequential service benefits from the date of the original select list
Source reference: p.4Law Applied
Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination in public employment on grounds of residence.
Source reference: p.3-4The Administrator and another v. Hidaya N.P. and others [OP(CAT) 204/2024], which struck down 100% local reservation for being constitutionally infirm.
Source reference: p.4Regarding service benefits, the Tribunal noted the principles in C. Jaychandran v. State of Kerala [(2020) 5 SCC 230] and Sagar Sontakke and Others v. Union of India and Others [(2025) SCC Online Bom. 316], which address the entitlement of service benefits from the date of the select list.
Source reference: p.4Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the respondents' reliance on the Hidaya case was misplaced.
Source reference: p.4It reasoned that the notification in the present case was issued in 2016, whereas the Hidaya ruling specifically addressed a 2019 notification.
Source reference: p.3-4Crucially, the 2016 notification had never been challenged on the grounds of 100% reservation, and three other candidates from the same select list had already been appointed.
Source reference: p.4Since there was no specific challenge to the 2016 selection process and the applicant had already cleared previous litigation regarding his qualifications, the Tribunal held that no sustainable ground existed to deny his appointment.
Source reference: p.4Regarding the claim for retrospective service benefits, the Tribunal deemed it premature due to a lack of specific pleadings and materials, choosing to leave that issue open for future consideration.
Source reference: p.4-5Holding
The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, holding that the Hidaya judgment cannot be applied to the disadvantage of the applicant in the absence of a specific challenge to the 2016 notification.
The respondents were directed to issue an appointment order to the applicant in accordance with the 2016 notification within one month from the date of the order.
Source reference: p.5The prayer for retrospective service benefits was not granted at this stage and was left open for later adjudication.
Source reference: p.5No costs were awarded.
Source reference: p.5Original Court PDF
ASIF SHAH MASHOODvsUT OF LAKSHADWEEP
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in