The State cannot leave advertised vacancies unfilled when eligible candidates are available in the waiting list.

The applicants, belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, applied for the post of Urdu Teacher under Advertisement Notification No. 06/2017

While district cadre posts were generally restricted to residents, SC candidates were permitted to apply across multiple districts

Clause 11 of the advertisement stipulated that the J&K Service Selection Board (JKSSB) would seek preferences from candidates who applied for multiple advertisements to avoid the repetition of names in different select lists

Although the Board initially activated an online portal to collect these preferences, it ultimately finalized the selection lists based purely on merit without applying the preference system

Consequently, several candidates appeared simultaneously in multiple district lists, causing approximately 70% of the reserved SC posts to remain unfilled

Applicant No. 2, placed at Serial No. 3 in the Srinagar district waiting list, sought appointment against a remaining vacancy

1. Whether the respondents were legally bound to implement the preference mechanism (Clause 11) stipulated in the advertisement notification after having operationalized it through an online portal

2. Whether the State can leave advertised reserved vacancies unfilled when eligible candidates from the waiting list are available, specifically where vacancies arose due to procedural duplication

The Tribunal applied the principle that while a candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment, the State cannot arbitrarily leave advertised posts vacant when eligible candidates are available

It noted that public employment must be conducted fairly to ensure vacancies are meaningfully filled

The respondents relied on Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others (2018), which posits that enabling provisions confer discretion that may or may not be exercised

The Tribunal balanced this with the doctrine that once a recruitment authority sets conditions in an advertisement and acts upon them, it cannot ignore them if such departure results in vacancies remaining unfilled and defeats the purpose of the recruitment

The Tribunal reasoned that Clause 11 was specifically designed to ensure the effective utilization of vacancies by preventing duplication

By activating the online portal for preferences, the respondents signaled the mandatory nature of this procedural step

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the preference system lacked statutory support, noting that the failure to implement it directly resulted in the non-filling of reserved seats

The court observed that merit must be applied in a "practical manner"; since higher-merit candidates occupied multiple slots, the next eligible candidates in the waiting list should be considered to avoid defeating the recruitment's purpose

Specifically, regarding Applicant No. 2, the Tribunal found that the existence of a clear vacancy and his position in the waiting list necessitated the operation of said list

It held that the applicants established that reserved vacancies remained unfilled due to the non-implementation of the preference mechanism

The Tribunal directed the respondents to fill the vacant SC post in District Srinagar by appointing Applicant No. 2, Satvir Singh, within 12 weeks, provided no candidate higher in merit in the waiting list was available

The appointment is to be prospective, with notional seniority granted from the date candidates lower in merit in the same selection were appointed

Finally, the Tribunal ordered that any other vacant SC posts under the advertisement be filled strictly in order of merit from the waiting list