Respondents directed to consider applicants’ claims by a reasoned order, without adjudicating the merits.

The applicants had applied pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2013 dated 12.03.2013 for recruitment to the posts of Fireman/Fireman Driver in the J&K Fire and Emergency Services.

After publication of a selection list dated 03.10.2020 and Order No. 823 of 2020 dated 04.10.2020, they challenged the selection process before the Tribunal in OA No. 61/905/2020.

By order dated 10.11.2021, the Tribunal directed the respondents to verify allegations concerning ineligible candidates, determine the number of posts advertised and filled, and consider the legal position regarding any remaining vacancies.

The applicants alleged non-compliance with that order and initiated contempt proceedings.

The respondents subsequently issued Order No. 78 of 2022 dated 11.03.2022 as a purported speaking/compliance order.

The contempt petitions were closed on 06.02.2023, with liberty to the applicants to challenge Order No. 78 of 2022 in appropriate proceedings.

The present OA challenged that order and sought consideration of the applicants’ candidature against existing or impending vacancies.

The respondents opposed the OA principally on the ground of delay and laches, asserting a delay of more than 1,292 days.

During the proceedings, the applicants sought disposal of the OA in terms of the Tribunal’s decision dated 19.05.2026 in OA No. 488/2023, involving substantially similar facts and legal issues.

1. Whether the applicants’ challenge to Order No. 78 of 2022 dated 11.03.2022 was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches?

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to reconsider the applicants’ case in light of the Tribunal’s decision dated 19.05.2026 in OA No. 488/2023 and pass a reasoned and speaking order concerning their entitlement and candidature?

3. Whether the Tribunal should itself adjudicate the applicants’ entitlement to selection and appointment against available vacancies?

The Tribunal relied on the directions issued in the earlier OA concerning verification of allegedly ineligible candidates and determination of unfilled vacancies.

It referred to Rajesh P.U., under which an entire recruitment process should not ordinarily be annulled where alleged irregularities can be identified and remedied by excluding ineligible candidates.

It also invoked the principles in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCR 567, and State of Orissa v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia, (2003) 10 SCC 144, concerning the legal consequences of vacancies remaining unfilled and the absence of an automatic right to appointment merely because a candidate is included in a select list.

The respondents were required to reconsider the applicants’ case in accordance with law, their actual entitlement, and the legal principles and authorities referred to in OA No. 488/2023.

The Tribunal did not finally determine either the limitation objection or the applicants’ substantive entitlement to appointment.

Although the respondents raised a substantial delay of more than 1,292 days, the applicants requested that the matter be disposed of in terms of the Tribunal’s subsequent decision in OA No. 488/2023.

Accepting that course, the Tribunal treated the OA itself as a representation and directed the respondents to reconsider the applicants’ cases in light of OA No. 488/2023, applicable law, and the relevant Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

Since the Tribunal expressly found it unnecessary to decide the merits at that stage, it neither quashed Order No. 78 of 2022 nor directed appointment; instead, it required a fresh, detailed, and speaking determination by the competent authorities.

The respondents were directed to treat the OA as a representation, consider the applicants’ cases in light of the order dated 19.05.2026 in OA No. 488/2023, applicable law, and the cited judicial precedents, and pass a detailed and speaking order concerning their entitlement within eight weeks from service of the Tribunal’s order and the OA.

The challenge to Order No. 78 of 2022 was therefore not finally allowed or rejected, and no order as to costs was made.