Withdrawal of advertised posts during pending litigation with interim protection is unsustainable.

Dr. Ashish Kumar Sharma, the applicant, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Applied Mathematics in the Higher Education Department of the then State of Jammu and Kashmir, under the Open Merit category, following Advertisement Notification No. 10-PSC (DR-P) of 2017 dated 27.10.2017.

He was shortlisted and interviewed on 31.01.2019, where he submitted details of nine research papers published in UGC-approved journals, expecting to be awarded maximum marks for research publications.

However, upon declaration of results on 07.03.2019, he secured 53.79 marks out of 100, falling short of the 55% benchmark for Open Merit category, and was not selected, with only one of the three Open Merit posts being filled.

The applicant alleged that the Selection Committee only awarded him two out of four possible marks for research publications, claiming that if all nine publications were considered, he would have exceeded the 55% threshold.

After his representation to the Commission went unanswered, he filed SWP No. 574/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court, which, on 20.03.2019, issued an interim order directing respondents not to re-advertise one post and to reconsider his merit concerning research publications.

This writ petition was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal as Transfer Application No. 3068/2020.

During the pendency, the Government issued Order No. GAD-MTGORBIV/200/2021-09-GAD dated 03.02.2022, withdrawing all posts referred to recruiting agencies before 31.10.2019 where selections were not finalized or litigation was pending.

Aggrieved, the applicant filed Original Application No. 356/2022 challenging this Government Order as it affected the advertised posts.

Respondents contended that the applicant failed to meet the 55% benchmark and all documents were duly evaluated, asserting no error was found upon reconsideration.

They further argued that the withdrawal of posts was a policy decision due to state reorganization and that the applicant had no vested right to appointment.

Whether the respondents failed to properly consider and award full marks for the applicant's research publications in the selection process for Assistant Professor in Applied Mathematics?

Whether the Government Order dated 03.02.2022, withdrawing posts where litigation was pending, could mechanically defeat the applicant's claim, especially in light of a prior interim protection order from the Hon'ble High Court?

The court primarily applied the principle that judicial interference with expert bodies' assessments is justified when the decision-making process is arbitrary, involves non-consideration of relevant material, or fails to follow prescribed rules.

It also implicitly invoked the principle that interim protection orders from higher courts must be complied with in letter and spirit, and subsequent policy decisions cannot frustrate ongoing judicial processes.

The selection criteria for Assistant Professor explicitly allowed marks for research publications in UGC-approved journals.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had submitted nine research papers published in UGC-approved journals and raised a grievance about not receiving full marks for his publications, which, if awarded, would have placed him above the 55% qualifying benchmark.

The respondents failed to clearly demonstrate that all nine publications were duly examined and evaluated according to the prescribed criteria, thus not adequately refuting the applicant's claim of oversight.

The Tribunal found that the failure of the respondents to re-examine the applicant's grievance, despite his representation and the specific interim direction from the Hon'ble High Court, indicated a lack of proper reconsideration and smacked of arbitrariness.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the Government Order dated 03.02.2022, withdrawing posts, could not be applied mechanically to defeat a claim already sub-judice under an interim protection order of the High Court, as such an action would frustrate the judicial process.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider and re-evaluate the applicant's research publications strictly according to the applicable selection criteria of Advertisement Notification No. 10-PSC (DR-P) of 2017.

If, upon re-evaluation, the applicant achieves the required benchmark and falls within the zone of selection, the respondents are to declare him selected and issue the necessary recommendation and appointment order against one of the available Open Merit posts of Assistant Professor in Applied Mathematics.

The Tribunal further directed that the one post protected by the High Court's interim order shall not be treated as withdrawn for the purpose of implementing this judgment.

This exercise must be completed within three months.