Service absorption cannot be denied solely because technical diplomas were obtained from recognized private institutions.

The applicant was engaged as a Special Police Officer (SPO) at the Police Training School, Kathua, in January 2011.

He performed technical duties, including computer maintenance and CCTV installation.

Upon completing over three years of service, the Principal of the Police Training School recommended him for absorption as a Constable.

However, the respondents rejected his claim via a communication dated April 11, 2018, asserting that his technical qualification (an ITI diploma in Computer Operator and Programming Assistant trade) was obtained from a private institute rather than a government ITI.

The applicant challenged this rejection, contending the institute was duly recognized by the Directorate of Technical Education and verified by the State Board of Technical Education.

The matter was transferred from the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to the Central Administrative Tribunal.

1. Whether the respondents' rejection of the applicant’s case for absorption on the ground that his ITI diploma was from a private (though recognized) institution was legally sustainable under the 2009 absorption policy?

2. Whether the applicant, having fulfilled the criteria of service tenure and possessing a verified technical qualification, has a right to be considered for absorption as a Constable?

The court primarily applied the Government Policy of 2009 governing the absorption of SPOs, which allows for appointment as Constables for those with three years of service and possession of an ITI diploma in relevant trades.

The Tribunal further relied on the constitutional mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which require administrative actions to be fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary.

It also applied the principle of Legitimate Expectation, stating that while SPO engagement is temporary, a policy-driven mechanism for absorption creates an expectation of fair and objective consideration.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant met the minimum three-year tenure and received positive recommendations from his superiors.

The Tribunal reasoned that since the Directorate of Technical Education had permitted the private institute to conduct the course and the State Board of Technical Education had verified the certificate, the respondents (Police Department) could not arbitrarily override the certification of the competent state technical authorities.

The court held that rejecting an otherwise eligible candidate based on a "hyper-technical interpretation" of the source of the diploma—despite government recognition of said source—constituted a non-application of mind and an arbitrary exercise of discretion.

Consequently, the action failed the test of administrative fairness under Article 14.

It held that the applicant had been wrongly deprived of absorption despite fulfilling eligibility requirements.

The respondents were directed to absorb/appoint the applicant as a Constable or Follower within three months, subject to medical fitness and antecedent verification.

The Tribunal granted the applicant notional seniority from the date his peers were absorbed, but denied back wages under the principle of “no work no pay,” granting monetary benefits only from the date of actual appointment.