Selective implementation of judicial directions in public employment violates Articles 14 and 16.

The applicant, Inderpal Singh, challenged the Government Order No. 01-Rev of 2017 which rejected his claim for selection and appointment to the post of Naib Tehsildar pursuant to advertisement notices issued by the J&K Service Selection Board in 2002, 2005, and 2008.

The applicant participated in a written examination on 22.02.2009 for Naib Tehsildar posts.

Subsequent to the examination, serious discrepancies were noticed in the question paper, leading several candidates to approach the Hon’ble High Court.

The High Court constituted an Expert Committee, which identified 23 defective questions and directed reassessment of merit based on 97 valid questions, along with consequential appointments.

The applicant had questioned the written examination even before the finalization of the select list and claimed parity with candidates who obtained relief through the High Court judgment.

However, the respondents rejected the applicant's claim, asserting that the benefit of the High Court's judgment was confined only to the original writ petitioners.

The respondents further contended that the applicant did not figure in the select list, the High Court judgment was allegedly in personam, the selection process had attained finality, and mere participation did not confer a right to appointment.

Whether the Government Order No. 01-Rev of 2017, rejecting the applicant's claim for selection and appointment to the post of Naib Tehsildar, is legally sustainable?

Whether the High Court's judgment directing reassessment of the Naib Tehsildar selection process due to defective questions operates in rem or in personam, and whether its benefits can be extended to similarly situated candidates not originally party to the litigation?

Whether the denial of appointment to the applicant, who is similarly situated to candidates who received relief, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?

The Tribunal applied the principles of equality in public employment enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the precedent set by its own judgment in Sahil Khajuria & Ors. v. State of J&K (TA 1101/2020) dated 31.07.2024, which held that judicial correction of an illegal selection process (like reassessment due to defective questions) affects the entire process and cannot be selectively implemented.

The Tribunal also invoked the principle that a judicial correction of an illegal selection process operates in rem and not merely in personam, meaning it applies to the process itself rather than just the parties to the litigation.

Furthermore, the court reiterated the principle that similarly situated persons must be treated alike, and the State cannot deny benefits flowing from judicial pronouncements to one set of candidates while granting them to others whose factual position is indistinguishable.

The Tribunal found that the controversy was squarely covered by its prior judgment in Sahil Khajuria & Ors. v. State of J&K, which arose from the same Naib Tehsildar selection process.

In that case, the Tribunal had held that once a written examination is judicially corrected by the deletion of defective questions and reassessment of merit, the fundamental basis of the selection process is altered for all candidates, not just the original litigants.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the High Court judgment operated in personam, stating that a judicial correction of an illegal selection process operates upon the process itself.

It emphasized that selective implementation of judicial directions affecting public employment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it creates arbitrary classification among identically placed candidates.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had questioned the examination prior to the finalization of the select list, placing him in the same category as those who received relief.

The respondents failed to demonstrate any intelligible differentia justifying the denial of parity.

The objection regarding delay and laches was also dismissed, as the applicant continuously pursued remedies and the illegality originated with the employer.

The impugned rejection order was deemed non-speaking and unsustainable for failing to demonstrate the application of mind.

The Tribunal quashed the impugned Government Order rejecting the applicant's claim.

The respondents were directed to appoint the applicant as Naib Tehsildar against an available direct recruitment vacancy, in parity with candidates who were granted relief pursuant to the reassessment of the same selection process, provided he falls within the zone of consideration after the High Court-ordered reassessment.

The applicant is entitled to notional seniority and continuity of service from the date similarly situated candidates were appointed, with monetary benefits accruing prospectively from the date of actual appointment.

This exercise must be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.