Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jammu And Kashmir Public Service vs Samir Sharma on 17 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2897-DB
Serial No. 18
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 1927/2022 c/w
WP(C) No. 2176/2022
Jammu and Kashmir Public Service .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Commission through
Secretary, Resham Ghar Colony,
Srinagar
Through: Mr. F. A. Natnoo, Advocate
vs
1. Samir Sharma ..... Respondent(s)
S/o Sh. V. N. Sharma
R/o H.No. 6, Sector 4, Trikuta Nagar,
Jammu, Tehsil and District Jammu.
2. UT of Jammu and Kashmir through
Commissioner Secretary to Govt.
Power Development Department, Civil
Secretariat, Jammu
Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG
Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
17.09.2025
Sanjeev Kumar 'J'
1. The J&K Public Service Commission ["the PSC"] as also the Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to
Government, Power Development Department have filed two separate
petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to throw
challenge to an order and judgment dated 09.03.2022, passed in TA
No. 235 of 2025 (SWP No. 1145 of 2004) whereby the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jammu ["the Tribunal"], while allowing the
OA filed by the respondent-Sumir Sharma, has directed the petitioners
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2897-DB
in these petitions to consider the respondent for appointment to the
post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on notional basis from the date
the other appointees of 1995 selection were appointed with all
consequential benefits as per rules.
2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition by the
petitioners are that in the year 1995, the PSC notified 22 vacancies of
Assistant Engineer (Electrical) for selection by issuing notification No.
29-PSC of 1995 dated 07.12.1995. The Respondent-Sumir Sharma,
who was possessing the qualification of BE (Electronics and
Communication) submitted his candidature for consideration.
3. With a view to shortlisting the eligible candidates on the basis of
screening test, the PSC decided to adopt the ratio of 1:3 i.e., to call the
candidates three times the number of vacancies notified for each
category. As per the result of the screening test, the respondent was
not amongst the candidates who were called for interview as per the
notified criterion of 1:3. However, later on, the short-listing criterion,
which was initially 1:3, was modified/amplified by the PSC to 1:10.
This brought the respondent also in the zone of consideration and
eligible to participate in the interview. Before the PSC could proceed
with the process of interview and complete the selection process, the
change of short-listing criterion from 1:3 to 1:10 came to be
challenged by the aggrieved candidates in several writ petitions, which
were dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court vide common order
dated 16.10.2001.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2897-DB
4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent herein along with others similarly
situated persons filed LPA (SWP) No. 530/2001, 535/2001, 516/2001,
517/2001 and 99/2002. All these appeals were clubbed together and
disposed of by a common judgment dated 27.05.2003 passed by a
Division Bench of this Court whereby the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge, dismissing the petitions, was upheld and the
PSC was directed to complete the process of selection in terms of the
decision it had taken earlier i.e. to interview the candidates in the ratio
of 1:3.
5. In compliance with the Division Bench judgment dated
27.05.2003(supra), the PSC permitted the candidates, falling in the
ratio of 1:3, to participate in the process of interview. The process of
selection was completed, which ultimately culminated into issuance of
select list. The select list was implemented and formal orders of
appointment in favour of the selected candidates were issued on
17.12.2003.
6. The respondent, who was not amongst the candidates shortlisted, was,
however, interviewed pursuant to the interim order passed by the
Division Bench during the pendency of the appeals. Since the appeals
were dismissed and the respondent was not a candidate falling in the
list of candidates shortlisted in the ratio of 1:3, as such, he could not be
considered in the selection process.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2897-DB
7. The chapter, which had opened with the issuance of the advertisement
notification for 22 posts, in the year 1995, thus closed with the
appointment of 21 candidates selected by the PSC.
8. Having lost before the Division Bench, the respondent filed SWP No.
1145 of 2004 before this Court. The provocation to file SWP No. 1145
of 2004 appears to be the issuance of a communication by the
Administrative Department of Power Development to the PSC
referring 47 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with a request to
make selection. Claiming that the 47 posts of Assistant Engineer
(Electrical), which had been referred by the Administrative
Department of Power Development to PSC, were the posts available
even in the earlier selection initiated by advertisement notification
dated 07.12.1995, the respondent sought intervention of this Court to
restrain the PSC to advertise the 47 posts of Assistant Engineer
(Electrical) and instead consider the respondent against the aforesaid
post on the ground that he had participated in the selection process and
would come in the selection zone.
9. This petition filed by the respondent met with resistance both by the
PSC and the Administrative Department of Power Development. The
writ petition, which was pending consideration before this Court came
to be transferred to the Tribunal in the wake of promulgation of J&K
Reorganisation Act, 2019 and was registered as TA No. 235/2022. The
Tribunal, having considered the rival contentions of the parties and
perused the material on record, came to the conclusion that the 47
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2897-DB
vacancies, which were notified by the PSC by issuing notification No.
07-PSC of 2005 dated 01.06.2005 were backlog vacancies available in
the year 1995. The Tribunal, having found that the PSC had failed to
produce the relevant selection record of the selection of 1995, allowed
the transfer application with a direction of the petitioners to declare the
respondent as successful in the selection process of the year 1995 and
give him the appointment to the post of AE (Electrical) on notional
basis from the date the other appointees of 1995 selection had been
appointed with all consequential benefits as per rules. It is this
judgment of the Tribunal, which is called in question before us.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment
impugned passed by the Tribunal is totally flawed and erroneous and
therefore, cannot be sustained.
11. Indisputably, the respondent was a candidate in the selection process
initiated by the PSC for filling up of 22 posts of Assistant Engineer
(Electrical), notified for selection vide advertisement notification dated
07.12.1995. A screening test was conducted by the PSC to shortlist the
candidates in the prescribed ratio of 1:3, however, on the request of
some eligible candidates or for some other reasons, best known to
PSC, the short-listing criterion of 1:3 was amplified to 1:10. This led
to litigation before this Court. Several aspiring candidates approached
this Court by way of different writ petitions challenging the change of
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2897-DB
short-listing criterion from 1:3 to 1:10. The writ petitioners succeeded
before the Single bench.
12. The respondent, who was not falling in the short-listing criterion of
1:3, but had fallen in the amplified shortlisting criterion of 1:10, also
felt aggrieved and challenged the judgment of learned Single Judge
dated 16.10.2001 before a Division Bench of this Court. There were
other appeals on the same subject matter filed by similarly situated
aspiring candidates. All the appeals were clubbed together under the
lead case of LPA (SWP) No. 530 of 2001 and were disposed of by the
Division Bench vide judgment dated 27.05.2003. The judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge was upheld and the PSC was directed to
conclude the selection process by adopting the short-listing criterion of
1:3. This is how the PSC concluded the selection process, which,
ultimately, terminated in issuance of the select list.
13. The respondent did not challenge the aforesaid selection process nor
did he feel aggrieved by the number of vacancies notified for making
selection in terms of advertisement notification dated 07.12.1995. It is
only when a fresh indent was issued by the Administrative Department
of Power Development to the PSC, requesting the latter to make
selection against 47 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the year
2005, the respondent again approached this Court to seek his
consideration against the 47 notified posts on the basis of his
participation in the earlier selection.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2897-DB
14. What the Tribunal has not appreciated is that the respondent had not
only participated in the earlier selection process conducted in the year
1995, but had never raised any issue with regard to the number of
posts notified for selection. It has also been reported to us that the
respondent even participated in the subsequent selection process,
initiated by the PSC vide notification dated 01.06.2005, in which he
came to be selected and appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
Probably, it is because of this reason, the respondent did not amend his
petition to throw challenge to the advertisement notification issued on
01.06.2005, which was issued by the PSC during the pendency of the
petition. Otherwise also, the respondent had not placed on record any
material to sufficiently demonstrate that on the date, the advertisement
notification was issued in the year 1995, apart from the 22 notified
vacancies, there were 47 more vacancies of Assistant Engineer
(Electrical) available, but were not notified by the PSC for ulterior
considerations.
15. In the absence of any such case set up, there was no occasion for the
Tribunal to come to the conclusion, that too, to a definite one, that
these 47 vacancies, which were notified in the year 2005, were
available in the year 1995, but were withheld for ulterior
considerations. Otherwise also, no candidate can claim, as a matter of
right, the notification of all the existing vacancies for selection for it is
a prerogative of the employee to supply all or some of the available
vacancies of a particular post. The selection process initiated in the
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2897-DB
year 2005, it may be noted, was finalised by the PSC in compliance
with the directions passed by the Divisional Bench and therefore, was
not liable to be opened on any grounds whatsoever, particularly, at the
instance of the respondent, who himself was the appellant before the
Division Bench.
16. Viewed from any angle, the judgment passed by the Tribunal cannot
be sustained and therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed.
17. For the foregoing reasons, we find merit in these petitions and the
same are allowed. The judgment impugned passed by the Tribunal is
set aside.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
Jammu
17.09.2025
Vishal Sharma
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
