Next meritorious candidate entitled to appointment when top-ranked individual secures selection across multiple notifications for identical vacancies.

The applicant, Dr. Surbhi Gupta, challenged two separate selection processes conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) for the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology

In the first selection (Notification No. 08-PSC of 2019), Respondent No. 5 (R5) was ranked first with 69.01 marks, while the applicant secured the second position with 67.01 marks

The applicant challenged R5’s eligibility in OA 1754/2021, arguing that an affidavit submitted by R5 in July 2017—stating she had no prior registrarship experience—proved she could not have gained the requisite two years of teaching experience by the cut-off date

During the pendency of this litigation, a second selection process for additional posts was conducted (Notification No. 12-PSC of 2021), where R5 again topped the merit list and the applicant again stood second

The applicant filed OA 776/2022, contending that if R5’s first selection was upheld, the second post should be offered to her as the next meritorious candidate

1. Whether Respondent No. 5 was ineligible for the post of Lecturer due to a lack of the prescribed two years of teaching experience as of the extended cut-off date of October 25, 2019

2. Whether the applicant, being the second-ranked candidate in both merit lists, is entitled to appointment against the second vacancy once Respondent No. 5 is adjusted against the first post

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It applied the principle of judicial restraint in service jurisprudence, which mandates that Courts and Tribunals should not act as "appellate experts" over the academic assessments of expert bodies unless there is evidence of mala fides, patent illegality, or rule violations

The Tribunal relied on the principle of administrative equity and the "quietus to litigation" doctrine, holding that while a candidate may be selected in multiple processes, they can only hold one post at a time, and the resulting vacancy must be filled by the next eligible candidate to prevent the wastage of public recruitment efforts

In OA 1754/2021, the Tribunal rejected the challenge to R5's eligibility, noting that the July 2017 affidavit only reflected her status at that specific time

Evidence showed R5 was engaged as a Registrar on August 18, 2017, and thus completed the required two years of experience prior to the extended cut-off date of October 25, 2019

The Tribunal held that the JKPSC and its subject experts had properly assessed R5's publications and experience, and it would not re-evaluate those marks in the absence of procedural impropriety

In OA 776/2022, the Tribunal observed a unique situation where R5 topped both lists. It reasoned that R5 could only occupy one post

To avoid administrative deadlock and multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal determined that the second vacancy should be offered to the applicant, who was the immediate next meritorious candidate in both selections

This approach was deemed the most equitable outcome, ensuring both public posts were filled through completed selection exercises

However, it allowed OA 776/2022 and directed the respondents to appoint the applicant, Dr. Surbhi Gupta, to the post of Lecturer in Ophthalmology under Notification No. 07-PSC (DR-S) of 2022, provided she met other eligibility criteria

The Tribunal ordered that the applicant’s appointment relate back to the original date of the second notification for notional seniority and continuity of service, though monetary benefits would only accrue from the date of actual joining

The exercise must be completed within 12 weeks