Selections will not be disturbed where challengers rank below the cutoff and allege unsupported mala fides.

The applicants challenged the selection of private respondents as Physical Education Teachers in District Pulwama pursuant to Advertisement Nos. 3 of 2006 and 6 of 2008.

They claimed to possess the requisite C.P.Ed. qualification, to have appeared in the interview, and to have been included in the provisional list of candidates.

Their names were not included in the final selection list published on 17 December 2009, whereas the private respondents were selected.

The writ petition was filed before the High Court in 2009 and was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal pursuant to an order dated 20 November 2020.

In its reply, the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board stated that the applicants had secured 18.93 and 27.59 points, while private respondents 4 to 6 had secured 35.53, 34.77, and 33.44 points respectively; the applicants were also below the relevant cut-off.

Whether the selection of the private respondents as Physical Education Teachers was liable to be quashed on the grounds of arbitrariness, political influence, extraneous consideration, mala fides, or violation of natural justice

Whether the applicants were entitled to a direction requiring the official respondents to consider them for appointment pursuant to Advertisement Nos. 3 of 2006 and 6 of 2008

Whether the applicants could obtain relief despite having secured lower marks than the selected candidates and falling below the applicable cut-off

The Tribunal applied the principle that allegations of political influence, arbitrariness, or mala fides must be supported by specific factual particulars; a bald allegation of political influence is insufficient.

Where mala fides are alleged, the person alleged to have acted mala fide must ordinarily be identified by name and given an opportunity to respond.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that judicial review will not interfere with a completed selection process in the absence of demonstrated illegality or arbitrariness, particularly where the challengers lack the requisite merit and the selected candidates have continued in service for a substantial period.

The applicants’ principal challenge rested on assertions of political influence, extraneous consideration, and mala fides, but they did not provide the specific particulars or identify the persons allegedly responsible for such conduct.

The Tribunal therefore declined to act on those unsubstantiated allegations.

More importantly, the official record showed that the applicants had obtained substantially fewer marks than private respondents 4 to 6 and were below the relevant cut-off, contradicting their claim that they were higher in merit.

In these circumstances, the applicants could not establish any legal basis for quashing the selection or securing consideration for appointment.

The Tribunal further considered that the private respondents had continued for approximately seventeen years, which militated against disturbing the completed selections at that stage.

It held that the allegations of political influence and mala fides were unsupported, the applicants were lower in merit and below the cut-off, and no ground for judicial interference with the completed selection was established.

Accordingly, the prayer to quash the selection and the consequential prayer for consideration for appointment were rejected.

T.A. No. 3813 of 2021, along with all connected miscellaneous applications, was dismissed.