Reservation benefits are service-specific; prior category use does not bar switching for fresh independent recruitments.

The applicant, belonging to the Resident of Backward Area (RBA) category, challenged the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Lecturer (Surgery) at Government Medical College (GMC), Jammu, under the RBA category pursuant to a 2016 advertisement

Respondent No. 4 secured 64 points, while the applicant secured 62 points

The applicant contended that Respondent No. 4 had previously availed Scheduled Tribe (ST) category benefits for MBBS and MS admissions, and for his initial appointment as an Assistant Surgeon in the Health Department in 2011

The applicant argued that under Section 19 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, a candidate cannot switch reserved categories once a choice is exercised

The respondents maintained that the recruitment for Lecturer in the Medical Education Gazetted Service is a fresh process governed by distinct rules from the Health Department, rendering the Section 19 bar inapplicable

1. Whether Section 19 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004, imposes a lifelong bar on a candidate from switching reserved categories for recruitment into a different service

2. Whether the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 4 under the RBA category was illegal or arbitrary despite having previously availed ST category benefits in a separate service

The Tribunal primarily applied Section 19 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004, which regulates the exercise of reservation benefits by candidates belonging to multiple reserved categories

It further considered the J&K Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, which govern appointments to GMCs as a separate cadre from the Health Department

The Tribunal also relied on the constitutional principles of Articles 14 and 16 regarding fair consideration in public employment and the doctrine that reservation is service-specific and post-specific rather than a permanent disqualification

The Tribunal reasoned that the restriction in Section 19 of the Reservation Act must be interpreted within the context of a particular service or career progression (promotion) within that service

It noted that Respondent No. 4’s previous appointment as an Assistant Surgeon fell under the Health Services, whereas the post of Lecturer belongs to the Medical Education Gazetted Service—a distinct service with its own recruitment framework and cadre structure

The Tribunal held that interpreting Section 19 as a "lifelong embargo" or a "permanent label" would lead to unreasonable consequences not intended by the legislature

Since the selection for the post of Lecturer constituted a fresh, independent recruitment process, Respondent No. 4 was entitled to apply under the RBA category using a valid certificate

Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that Respondent No. 4 was more meritorious (64 points) than the applicant (62 points), and the applicant had no vested right to appointment over a higher-merit candidate in the absence of statutory illegality

It held that Section 19 of the J&K Reservation Act does not prevent a candidate from claiming benefit under a different reserved category during a fresh recruitment into a separate service

Consequently, the appointment of Respondent No. 4 was upheld, and no relief was granted to the applicant