Facts
The applicants were selected as Assistant Professors (Dogri) in 2016 via Notification No. 02-PSC(DR-S) of 2016
Source reference: p. 5This selection was quashed by a Single Bench of the JK High Court in Dr. Deepika Mehra v. State of JK on 27.09.2017
Source reference: p. 5The applicants appealed this via LPASW No. 194/2017, where the Division Bench stayed the quashing order on 06.10.2017
Source reference: p. 5During the pendency of the appeal, a fresh notification (No. 10-PSC(DR-P) of 2017) was issued for 49 new posts
Source reference: p. 10The applicants participated in this second process and were selected/appointed via Govt. Order No. 401-HE of 2019
Source reference: p. 6, 11The applicants approached the Tribunal seeking to reserve two posts from the later selection or to have their joining accepted without prejudice to their rights in the pending 2017 appeals, fearing that joining the new posts might jeopardize their seniority or claims in the earlier selection
Source reference: p. 6-7Issues
1. Whether the respondents can be commanded to reserve two posts from a subsequent selection process (2019) pending the final adjudication of litigation concerning an earlier, distinct selection process (2016)
Source reference: p. 12, para. 62. Whether the applicants' participation and appointment in a subsequent selection process constitutes a waiver of their legal rights in pending appeals regarding their initial selection
Source reference: p. 18, para. 16Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principle of functus officio, noting that once a Public Service Commission completes a selection and forwards recommendations, it retains no power over appointments or reservation of posts
Source reference: p. 8, 11It further applied the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no man), ensuring that the pendency of litigation should not unfairly penalize a party
Source reference: p. 18the administrative principle that public posts cannot be blocked or "frozen" without statutory authority once a distinct selection process is concluded
Source reference: p. 17, para. 15Reasoning
The Tribunal reasoned that the 2014/2016 selection (13 posts) and the 2017/2019 selection (49 posts) were entirely separate legal exercises with different indents and notifications
Source reference: p. 16, para. 14Consequently, there was no legal basis to "reserve" posts from the second process to satisfy potential outcomes of the first
Source reference: p. 17The Tribunal observed that the Commission became functus officio after the 2019 recommendations
Source reference: p. 15The Tribunal acknowledged the applicants' dilemma: their participation in the second process was a bona fide attempt to secure employment after their first selection was quashed
Source reference: p. 17, para. 16It held that while the administrative process of the second selection must proceed, the applicants' appellate rights must be protected to ensure that joining the new posts is not legally construed as an abandonment of their potentially superior rights (like seniority) from the first selection
Source reference: p. 18, para. 17Holding
The Tribunal declined the prayer to reserve two posts from the 2019 selection, holding that a selection process cannot be partly frozen due to unrelated pending litigation
(a) the applicants' participation and appointment in the 2019 process shall not be treated as a waiver or abandonment of their rights in LPASW No. 194/2017
Source reference: p. 19, para. 21(b) their current appointments remain subject to the final outcome of the said appeals
Source reference: p. 18, para. 19(c) the competent authority must process their joining reports in accordance with previous High Court interim orders
Source reference: p. 19, para. 20The Transfer Application was disposed of without costs
Source reference: p. 20Original Court PDF
Dr Yashpal SharmavsUnion Public Service Commission
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in