Waitlists must be operated by merit; lower-ranked candidates qualify only if higher-ranked candidates are unavailable.

The J&K Services Selection Board advertised Naib Tehsildar posts in 2002, 2005 and 2008, with a combined selection process ultimately covering 111 posts. Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Jamwal applied under the 2002 advertisement and obtained 94.33 marks, but was placed seventh in the Open Merit (OM) waiting list.

He challenged, among other matters, the tie-breaking method used to rank candidates and the placement of two candidates with disabilities, who also belonged to the RBA and ALC categories, against posts treated as OM rather than under their respective reserved categories.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) held that the two candidates should have been accommodated in their respective RBA and ALC categories, quashed the appointments of Om Raj Sombria and Virender Kumar, and directed that Jamwal be placed fourth in the OM waiting list and appointed.

The UT and the Board challenged the CAT’s decision; Sombria and Kumar separately challenged the decision affecting their appointments.

Whether the CAT was correct in holding that the candidates with disabilities, who also belonged to the RBA and ALC categories, should have been accommodated in those categories rather than against the OM posts, thereby affecting the appointments of Sombria and Kumar.

Whether Jamwal’s placement fourth in the OM waiting list entitled him to immediate appointment, or whether the candidates ranked ahead of him had first to be considered through operation of the waiting list.

The Court considered SRO-294 dated 21 October 2005, which provided for horizontal reservation in public-service recruitment, and SRO-387 dated 1 December 2008, which prescribed how merit was to be determined in the event of a tie, including reference to viva-voce marks.

The Court accepted the CAT’s conclusion that the candidates’ disability status required their adjustment within their respective RBA and ALC categories, rather than their placement against OM posts.

It also held that placement on a waiting list does not, without more, justify appointment ahead of candidates ranked higher on that list; the list must be operated according to merit.

The Court found no error in the CAT’s conclusion that the two candidates with disabilities had been wrongly placed against OM posts and should instead have been accommodated in their respective reserved categories. It therefore upheld the CAT’s reasoning on the resulting category adjustments and declined to disturb Sombria’s and Kumar’s appointments in their respective categories.

However, although those adjustments moved Jamwal from seventh to fourth in the OM waiting list, the CAT had not found that the three candidates ahead of him had been appointed or had otherwise ceased to be eligible for consideration. The Court therefore held that Jamwal could not be directed to appointment without first operating the waiting list in order of merit and determining the position of those candidates.

The Board and the UT were directed to operate the OM waiting list by merit and, if the higher-ranked candidates were unavailable or declined appointment, to select and appoint Jamwal against one of the two additional OM posts. If no 2002 post remained available, a vacancy from a subsequent year was to be used. Jamwal was to receive notional benefits, without disturbing the appointments of Sombria and Kumar. Compliance was directed within three months.