Similarly situated waiting-list candidates must receive equal consideration for revalidation and operation of the list.

The Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board issued Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2017 dated 28 December 2017 for recruitment of Urdu Teachers, including five posts in District Reasi. The applicant participated in the selection process and was placed at Serial No. 2 in the Open Merit waiting list published on 25 February 2019.

Two selected candidates, Shoket Ahmed and Shaied Iqbal, did not join the posts. The vacancy caused by Shoket Ahmed’s non-joining was filled by recommending the candidate at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list. Subsequently, Shaied Iqbal’s candidature was cancelled by the Services Selection Board on 06 March 2020 for failure to furnish the requisite documents, and the Board requested operation of the waiting list against the resultant vacancy.

The Chief Education Officer, Reasi, and the Director, School Education, Jammu, recommended the applicant for appointment against the vacancy caused by Shaied Iqbal’s cancellation. The proposal was not approved by the competent authorities.

In an earlier Original Application, O.A. No. 61/467/2022, the Tribunal directed the respondents to treat the applicant’s claim as a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents rejected the claim through Government Order No. 513-JK (Edu) of 2025 dated 07 July 2025.

Thereafter, the respondents revalidated and operated waiting lists arising from the same 2017 advertisement for similarly situated teaching posts in the Kashmir Division through Notification No. 02-DSEK of 2026 dated 20 June 2026. The applicant claimed that he was entitled to identical treatment.

1. Whether the applicant’s claim for operation and revalidation of the waiting list against the vacancy caused by cancellation of Shaied Iqbal’s candidature was required to be reconsidered in light of the subsequent operation of similarly situated waiting lists arising from the same advertisement?

2. Whether the applicant, having been placed in the waiting list and recommended by the competent authorities, was entitled to consideration for appointment on the same terms and conditions as candidates covered by Notification No. 02-DSEK of 2026?

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved government employee or eligible person to approach the Tribunal for adjudication of service-related grievances.

The applicant also relied upon Rule 14(7) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010, as amended by SRO-533 dated 29 November 2018, concerning operation of waiting lists against resultant vacancies.

The Tribunal applied the principle of administrative consistency and equal treatment: where the respondents had revalidated and operated waiting lists from the same selection process for similarly situated candidates, the applicant’s claim was required to be considered on the same parameters, subject to his being similarly situated and otherwise eligible.

The Tribunal found that the material facts supporting the applicant’s claim were undisputed: he was duly placed in the Open Merit waiting list; Shaied Iqbal’s candidature had been cancelled; the Services Selection Board had directed operation of the waiting list; and the competent education authorities had recommended the applicant as the next meritorious candidate.

The subsequent revalidation and operation of waiting lists arising from the very same 2017 advertisement in the Kashmir Division constituted a material development. Applying the principle of equal and consistent treatment, the Tribunal held that the applicant’s claim deserved consideration on the same parameters as the cases covered by Notification No. 02-DSEK of 2026.

However, the Tribunal did not itself declare the applicant entitled to appointment or finally invalidate the earlier rejection. Instead, it directed the respondents to undertake the requisite comparative and eligibility assessment in accordance with the methodology previously adopted.

The applicant was to be considered against the resultant vacancy caused by cancellation of Shaied Iqbal’s candidature, on the same terms and conditions and in accordance with the same criteria and methodology. If found similarly situated and otherwise eligible, his case was to be processed for appointment.

The exercise was required to be completed and a reasoned order passed within six weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

There was no order as to costs.