Migrant candidates eligible under rehabilitation schemes cannot be denied appointment due to procedural irregularities.

The applicants, Kashmiri Migrants residing in migrant camps in Jammu, filed two matters (TA No. 331/2020 and OA No. 1359/2025) seeking appointment under the Prime Minister's Special Package for Kashmiri Migrants

They had applied for various posts advertised by the Service Selection Recruitment Board (SSRB) between 2010 and 2020 and claimed eligibility and participation in the selection process

They argued that due to non-availability of candidates from reserved categories, these posts were de-reserved by Government Order No. 10-DMRRR of 2019 dated 06.03.2019, making them eligible for consideration

The respondents contended that the recruitment was under applicable rules, only selected candidates could be appointed, selection was finalized, and claims were belated

Whether the applicants, as Kashmiri Migrants who participated in the selection process, are entitled to appointment against posts initially reserved for special categories but subsequently de-reserved

Whether the respondents failed to implement the government scheme for rehabilitation and employment of Kashmiri Migrants in a fair and equitable manner

The court primarily applied the principle that similarly situated candidates must be treated alike, rooted in the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India

It also relied on judicial precedent from TA No. 8294/2021 and other connected matters, which established that eligible migrant candidates should not be deprived of consideration due to procedural irregularities or administrative delay under schemes for displaced persons

The court reasoned that the current case presented an "almost identical issue" to one previously decided by the Tribunal in TA No. 8294/2021

In that precedent, it was held that the purpose of rehabilitation schemes for displaced persons should be implemented fairly, ensuring that eligible candidates are not excluded due to administrative delays or procedural issues

The court found no evidence against the applicants' eligibility or valid rejection of their claims on merits

Given the hardship faced by the displaced community and the intent of the scheme to provide livelihood, the court emphasized that the authorities should adopt a broad, rather than a narrow or technical, approach

Therefore, the applicants deserved the same treatment afforded to similarly situated individuals in past judgments

The respondents were directed to appoint the applicants against posts meant for Kashmiri Migrants in accordance with applicable rules and the government scheme

If immediate vacancies were unavailable, the respondents were ordered to accommodate the applicants against the next available vacancies or by creating supernumerary posts

This exercise was to be completed within three months