Prescribed eligibility in advertisements prevails over unstated length of qualification; waiting list status confers no indefeasible right.

The applicants, possessing two-year diplomas in Anaesthesia and registration with the J&K Para Medical Council, challenged the selection and appointment of private respondents for the post of Technical Assistant/Technician (Department of Anaesthesiology) in Jammu Division.

The Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB) issued Advertisement Notice No. 05 of 2019, prescribing the qualification as "10+2 with Science or above qualification with Diploma in Anaesthesia Assistant Course from any recognized Institute/SMF".

The applicants, who were placed on the waiting list due to lower merit scores, alleged that the private respondents were ineligible as they possessed only one-year diplomas from institutions outside J&K, which they claimed were not recognized or registrable.

The official respondents maintained that the advertisement did not specify a two-year duration and that appointments were made based on higher merit subject to document verification.

1. Whether the advertisement notification necessitated a mandatory two-year diploma for eligibility, despite not expressly stating the duration.

2. Whether the selection of candidates with one-year diplomas from institutions outside J&K was legally valid under the recruitment rules and relevant Government Orders.

3. Whether the challenge to the selection process was maintainable after the applicants participated without protest and after a significant lapse of time.

The Tribunal applied the principle that courts cannot supplement or "read into" advertisement conditions that are not expressly stated.

It relied on established service jurisprudence that placement in a waiting list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment and the doctrine that candidates participating in a selection process without protest are estopped from challenging the eligibility criteria after being declared unsuccessful.

It further considered Government Order No. 828-HME of 2019 and Order No. 122-JK(HME) of 2020, which protected the validity of diplomas from outside institutions if the candidates were admitted during the period of the institution's recognition.

Finally, it applied the principle of administrative stability, where stale challenges to completed selections are discouraged due to the crystallization of third-party rights.

The Tribunal reasoned that the advertisement notice only required a "Diploma in Anaesthesia Assistant Course" without specifying a duration; thus, the court could not unilaterally impose a two-year requirement.

Since the applicants participated in the written exam and document verification with full knowledge of these terms, they could not challenge the criteria after failing to secure higher merit than the private respondents.

Regarding the validity of one-year diplomas from outside J&K, the Tribunal noted that the official respondents had protected such diplomas via Government Orders provided admission occurred during recognition periods.

The Tribunal underscored that the JKSSB’s role was limited to selection based on merit, while the final verification of certificate genuineness remained the duty of the appointing authority.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the appointments were made in 2020, and unsettling them years later would be inequitable and contrary to public interest.

The court held that the applicants had no vested right to appointment as waitlisted candidates with lower merit.

The court clarified that the competent authority remains empowered to take action if any selected candidate is found to have produced fake or unrecognized certificates upon individual verification, and no costs were awarded.