Recruitment advertisement allocation by indenting department not judicially re-examinable absent statutory violation.

The applicants, Rakesh Sharma and Vishav Deepak, permanent residents of District Samba and qualified with Matriculation and ITI Diplomas in Electrician trade, challenged Advertisement Notice No. 04 of 2013 dated 23.02.2013.

The advertisement was for 386 posts of Technician-III statewide, with 102 posts for District Jammu, but no posts specifically for District Samba.

The applicants contended that 11 posts of Technician-III in the Engineering Division, Vijaypur, which falls within District Samba, were wrongly included under District Jammu's allocation.

They relied on RTI information dated 22.01.2014, asserting that these were District Cadre posts that should have been advertised for Samba District, and that their diversion violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The respondents, particularly the J&K Service Selection Board, stated that their role was limited to advertising vacancies as referred by the indenting department (Power Development Department) and that the determination and district-wise allocation of posts was the exclusive domain of the indenting department.

They highlighted that no vacancy was notified for District Samba under the challenged advertisement.

The advertisement was issued in 2013 and the matter has been pending for a considerable period.

Whether the Advertisement No. 04 of 2013 dated 23.02.2013, to the extent it excluded Samba District and included 11 Technician-III vacancies pertaining to Engineering Division Vijaypur within District Jammu's allocation, is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Whether the respondents can be commanded to advertise and notify 11 vacancies of Technician-III for Samba District.

Whether the applicants possess an enforceable legal right to compel the respondents to separately advertise 11 posts for District Samba and whether the inclusion of such posts within District Jammu allocation is illegal or unconstitutional.

Whether the administrative allocation of posts, as communicated by the competent department, constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The court applied the principle that merely possessing eligibility does not confer a vested right to demand advertisement or recruitment for a vacancy, and the employer retains discretion in matters of identification, allocation, and distribution of posts unless such action violates statutory rules.

It further observed that courts and tribunals are hesitant to disturb recruitment processes after a significant lapse of time unless there is clear illegality, fraud, or statutory violation.

The court also relied on the principle that the Service Selection Board's role is confined to conducting selections against vacancies referred by the indenting department, and the determination and allocation of vacancies fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the indenting department.

The Tribunal analyzed that the applicants failed to present any statutory rule mandating that posts falling geographically within a particular engineering division must be advertised district-wise as they suggested.

The RTI information indicating the administrative location of posts did not establish that these posts were formally declared as separate District Cadre posts for Samba or that their allocation violated any rule.

The Service Selection Board could not be held responsible for the allocation as it merely acts upon indent received from the Power Development Department.

The Tribunal found no material to demonstrate that the Indenting Department acted in violation of statutory provisions, precluding judicial substitution of administrative allocation.

The claim of Articles 14 and 16 violation was deemed unsustainable as there was no evidence of discrimination between similarly situated persons or denial of equal opportunity, nor was it shown that posts reserved for Samba were unlawfully diverted contrary to any binding rule.

Lastly, interfering with a recruitment process initiated in 2013 after a substantial lapse of time, without establishing clear illegality, fraud, or statutory violation, would adversely affect third-party rights.

The relief sought would involve directing the government to restructure its allocation of posts, which falls within the executive's policy domain and is not amenable to judicial interference in this case.

Accordingly, the Transfer Application was dismissed.