Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On: 10.02.2026 vs Union Of India And Others on 19 February, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:443-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No: LPA No.177/2024
CM No. 6997/2024
CM No. 4940/2025
CM No. 5013/2024
Reserved on: 10.02.2026
Pronounced on:19.02.2026
Uploaded on:19.02.2026
Whether the operative part or full
Judgment is pronounced :Full
Altaf Hussain and another
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Altaf Hussain and Mr. Roshan Lal-
Appellants in person.
v/s
Union of India and others
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Mr. Eishaan Dadichi, CGSC
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
PER OSWAL-J
1. The writ petition preferred by the appellants bearing SWP No.
924/2018, whereby they had challenged Notification dated 28.10.2017
for cancelling Advertisement Notification No. Ed/715/GNR dated
10.02.2016, came to be dismissed in terms of judgment dated
07.03.2024.
2. The appellants in person have filed this intra-court appeal thereby
assailing the judgment dated 07.03.2024 rendered by the learned writ
Court on the ground that the learned writ Court has not examined the
LPA No. 177/2024 Page 1 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:443-DB
issue of parity as in the similar Advertisement, some candidates were
selected and they were even permitted to join by the respondents. It is
also contended that appellant No.1 was asked to submit his Computer
Literacy Certificate, which he did. Thereafter, his verification was
also conducted by the CID of J&K Police, and he was cleared by the
CID Agency, but while appellant No. 1 was awaiting the issuance of
the appointment order, the respondents, without any rhyme or reason,
proceeded to cancel the Notification pursuant to which they had
applied for the post of Gramin Dak Sewak, which the appellants came
to know through reply dated 05.04.2018 in response to the legal notice
served upon the respondents. It is also urged that no reason has been
mentioned in the communication dated 01.08.2016 that necessitated
the cancellation of the selection of all types of Gramin Dak Sewaks.
Besides, it is also contended that in the same selection list, the
respondents permitted one Vijay Singh to join, for the reasons best
known to them and on the contrary denied the appointment to the
appellants.
3. During the pendency of this appeal, the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 directed the respondents to file a
short affidavit indicating the following:
(i) What is the status of selection process in question which was
stopped in terms of communication of Assistant Director
General (GDS), Ministry of Communication and IT Department
of Posts dated 01.08.2016?
(ii) Whether any formal decision on the proposal for making online
selection of Grameen Dak Sevaks was taken by the competent
authority, more particularly, when we are shown advertisement
notification issued on 05.06.2018 inviting applications for
LPA No. 177/2024 Page 2 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:443-DB
filling up the vacant posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks without
adopting online mode?
(iii) What is the present status of the posts of GDS BPM, Branch
Office Nanga and GDS BPM, Branch Office Kotli Mian Fateh?
4. In response to the said affidavit, the respondents stated that all
engagement cases where the selection was underway, but not
finalized, were cancelled. Subsequently, permission to conduct the
selection process manually in the Jammu & Kashmir Circle was
granted vide Postal Directorate letter No. 17-23/2016-GDS dated
27.10.2017, issued by ADG (GDS) and subsequently, vide letter
No.ED/8-225/GDS Recruitment dated 08.11.2017 was issued to all
the Postal Divisions in Jammu & Kashmir Circle requesting them to
manually process the engagement/selection of Gramin Dak Sevaks of
all categories. It was also stated that the posts of GDS Branch
Postmaster at Nanga Branch Office and Kotli Mian Fateh Branch
Office were notified under GDS Online Engagement Cycle-II/2019-
2020 vide Notification No. ED/8-225/GDS RECTT./II.
5. In response to the affidavit filed by the respondents, the appellants
submitted that their original documents had been retained by the
respondents, on account of which they were prevented from applying
afresh. The appellants have also adverted to various factual aspects of
the case, which may be taken note of, as and when required.
6. An application bearing CM No. 6997/2024 has been filed by the
appellants to place on record the advertisement notice dated
05.06.2018 whereby the respondents have received the application
forms from the eligible candidates for the post of Gramin Dak Sevaks
mail carrier to assert that the process was initiated on off-line/online
LPA No. 177/2024 Page 3 of 12
basis. Thereafter, another CMP No. 4940/2025 has been filed by 2026:JKLHC-JMU:443-DB
the
appellants whereby the appellants have placed on record the selection
list and merit list for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch
Postmaster Kotli Mian Fateh Branch Office obtained through RTI on
23.05.2025.
7. The appellants, who are interestingly appearing in person despite
lacking legal knowledge and expertise, have submitted that the
appellant No.1 was directed to submit Computer Literacy Certificate
which he submitted, and thereafter his verification was also got
conducted by the respondents through CID, J&K Police and he was
cleared in verification also, but was not appointed for the reason as he
was informed that the recruitment process was kept pending in view
of the letter dated 01.08.2016. Appellant No.2 has submitted that as
per the information provided to him under the RTI Act, he was
figuring at S.No.1 in the merit list for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak,
Branch Postmaster at Kotli Mian Fateh Branch Office. Appellants
have further submitted that the respondents could not have cancelled
the selection process without furnishing any justifiable reasons.
8. Per contra, Mr Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI has submitted that in
view of the instructions received on 05.10.2016 vide communication
dated 01.08.2026 from Postal Directorate, the recruitment process was
kept pending, and finally cancelled vide letter No. EDS-715/GNR
dated 25.10.2017. He further submitted that vide letter dated
01.08.2016, it was decided to stop all the cases of engagement, which
were under process as there was a proposal for online selection of
Gramin Dak Sevaks. Mr. Sharma, learned DSGI has admitted that
LPA No. 177/2024 Page 4 of 12
because of joining of one Vijay Singh at some other place, 2026:JKLHC-JMU:443-DB
the
appellant No.1 was to be appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak for Branch
Postmaster, Nanga Branch Office, whereas the appellant No.2 was
figuring at S.No.1 in the merit list and it was only because there was a
proposal to make engagement on the basis of online selection process,
the advertisement notice pursuant to which the appellants had applied,
was cancelled.
9. Heard appellants in person and learned DSGI for the respondents and
also perused the record.
10.This is the admitted case of the respondents that the appellant No.1
applied for Branch Postmaster, Nanga Branch Office and he figured at
S.No.2. One Vijay Singh, who was figuring at S.No. 1 ahead of
appellant No.1, opted for Branch Postmaster, Pangyari Branch Office
vide his application dated 06.05.2016 and thereafter his candidature
for the Nanga Branch Office was cancelled and treated as withdrawn.
The appellant No.1 being next meritorious candidate was asked to
submit the essential Computer Literacy Certificate vide
communication dated 25.05.2016, which he submitted. While the
document verification process was underway, the respondents
abruptly issued a communication dated 01.08.2016. This directive
ordered an immediate halt to the selection and engagement of all
Gramin Dak Sevaks, leading to the subsequent cancellation of the
recruitment advertisement.
11.Regarding appellant No. 2, we observe that the initial writ petition
was inadequately drafted, lacking specific averments on his behalf.
However, by placing unimpeachable official documents on record,
LPA No. 177/2024 Page 5 of 12
appellant No. 2 has satisfactorily demonstrated that he applied for 2026:JKLHC-JMU:443-DB
the
post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster at Kotli Mian Fateh
Branch Office and was ranked first in the merit list. Though we could
have remanded the case to the learned Writ Court for reconsideration,
we are not inclined to do so, particularly having regard to the fact that
the litigation has remained pending for more than eight years. Also
having regard to the nature of the post and in view of the submission
made by the learned DSGI admitting the authenticity of the
documents, we find it inappropriate to remit the matter at this belated
stage.
12.The core question that arises for our determination is whether the
respondents were legally justified in cancelling the recruitment
advertisement, pursuant to which the appellants had applied, solely on
the basis of the communication dated 01.08.2016.
13.Before adverting to the issue, it is necessary to examine the settled
judicial precedents governing the scope of judicial review in matters
where a selection process is cancelled at an advanced stage .
14.In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are
notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are
found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right
to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied.
Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation
to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on
their selection they do not acquire any right to the post.
Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State
is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.
However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of
acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up
the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate
reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the
State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the
LPA No. 177/2024 Page 6 of 12
candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and 2026:JKLHC-JMU:443-DB
no
discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been
consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any
discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash
Chander Marwaha , Neelima Shangla v. State of
Haryana or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab .
(emphasis added)
15. In East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao, (2010) 7 SCC 678,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:
14. It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires
an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared
in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet
the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an
appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of
the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end
of the selection process. The validity of the State’s decision
not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not
beyond judicial review before a competent writ court. If any
such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate
directions can be issued in the matter.
(emphasis added)
16. In Partha Das v. State of Tripura, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844, the
recruitment process for the post of Inspector of Boilers had reached its
final stage, with only the interview results pending declaration.
However, the process was stayed and subsequently cancelled
following the introduction of a new recruitment policy. The High
Court of Tripura quashed the cancellation order, a decision which was
upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the following
observations:
“As such, we are not inclined to deal with all the similar issues
separately in the present case. The candidates participated in the
recruitment process carried out under the Boilers Act read with
the Central Rules and State Rules. After issuance of
advertisement, a written screening test was conducted on
21.08.2017, pursuant to which selected candidates, including
LPA No. 177/2024 Page 7 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:443-DB
respondent no. 1 were called for interview on 07.12.2017.
Thus, only the result of the interview was left to be declared.
As such the recruitment process for the post of ‘Inspector of
Boilers’ was at a significantly advanced stage when the
recruitment process was kept in abeyance, later cancelled
by the Cancellation Memorandum and TPSC notification
dated 22.11.2018. The application of the NRP to the ongoing
recruitment process was arbitrary and unjust and
candidates do have a legitimate expectation of completion of
the recruitment process in a fair and non-arbitrary manner.
It is pointed out by the appellant – State that in the facts of this
case, in the Boilers Act, Central Rules or the State Rules or
even in the Advertisement, there is no prescription of marks to
be obtained in the written test or the interview, but the fact
remains that the written test was already conducted out of 100
marks and the interview was also conducted out of 100 marks.
As such, the subsequent decision to apply NRP to the said
recruitment process cannot be sustained. The recruitment
should be completed as per the Boilers Act, Central Rules and
State Rules, and the candidates may be appointed, if found to be
meritorious, subject to fulfilling all other criteria.
(emphasis added)
17.Thus, while it is settled law that mere participation in a selection
process does not vest an indefeasible right to appointment, the State’s
power to cancel such a process is not absolute and must be grounded
in justifiable reasons. Constitutional Courts, in the exercise of judicial
review, are empowered to scrutinize an employer’s decision to
abandon a recruitment process, particularly when it has reached an
advanced stage of conclusion. If such a decision is found to be
arbitrary or lacks a rational nexus with the intended objective, the
Court may issue appropriate directions to provide relief.
18.We shall now evaluate the contentions of the parties in light of the
principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The communication
dated 01.08.2016, which serves as the sole basis for the cancellation
of the recruitment process for all categories of Gramin Dak Sevaks, is
reproduced below:
LPA No. 177/2024 Page 8 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:443-DB
“Government of India,
Ministry of Communication,
Department of Posts
(GDS Section)No. 17-23/2016-GDS Dated 1, Aug. 2016
To,
All Heads of Circles.
Sub: Proposed on line selection of all categories of GDS-reg.
I am directed to request you to stop selection/engagement of all types
of Gramin Dak Sevaks with immediate effect. It is further requested to stop
all cases of engagement which are under process. Cases where selection has
already been finalized and communicated to candidates only need not be
withheld.
2. These orders are issued in view of proposal for on line selection of
Gramin Dak Sevaks. Further orders in this regard may kindly be awaited.
3. This issues with the approval of competent authority.
(R.L.Patel)
Asstt. Director General (GDS)”
19.The communication dated 01.08.2016 indicates that the selection
process was scrapped solely to facilitate a transition to online
recruitment. Abandoning a nearly-concluded selection for a mere
procedural change, without any allegation of irregularity, constitutes
an arbitrary exercise of power. This decision is legally flawed and
lacks a rational nexus to the objective of fair recruitment. Given the
respondents’ subsequent actions, the cancellation is both unreasonable
and unsustainable in the eyes of law, as in affidavit filed by the
respondents pursuant to order dated 08.04.2025 in response to query
No.1 as extracted above, it was stated by the respondents that
permission to conduct the selection process manually in the Jammu &
Kashmir Circle was granted vide Postal Directorate letter No.
17-23/2016-GDS dated 27.10.2017 issued by the Additional Director
LPA No. 177/2024 Page 9 of 12
2026:JKLHC-JMU:443-DB
General (Gramin Dak Sevaks) and subsequently letter No. ED/8-
225/GDS Recruitment dated 08.11.2017 was issued to all Postal
Divisions in Jammu & Kashmir Circle requesting them to manually
process the engagement/selection of Gramin Dak Sevaks of all
categories. The respondents submitted this reply only after it was
brought to the Court’s attention that despite the purported cancellation
of the recruitment process, a fresh advertisement was issued on
05.06.2018. Crucially, this new notice invited applications for Gramin
Dak Sevak posts without adopting the online mode, directly
contradicting the respondents’ stated justification for the initial
cancellation.
20.By their own admission, the respondents sanctioned a special
exemption for the J&K Circle to continue manual recruitment after
01.08.2016. This admission fatally undermines the decision to cancel
the earlier recruitment process. Once the respondents elected to
proceed with manual engagements for all categories in the J&K
Circle, their refusal to complete the earlier selection process, which
had already reached its final stage, became an act of manifest
arbitrariness. This is borne from the record that the appellant No.1
was only about to be appointed and the appellant No.2 was at the top
of the merit list for Branch Postmaster Kotli Mian Fateh Branch
Office.
21.Mr. Sharma, the learned DSGI, has submitted that the two vacancies
for which the appellants sought selection have already been filled.
However, he has submitted that fresh Notification has been issued by
the respondent No.1 dated 28.01.2026 whereby the applications have
LPA No. 177/2024 Page 10 of 12
been invited to fill up the vacant posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks2026:JKLHC-JMU:443-DB
in
different offices of the Department of Posts including Gramin Dak
Sevaks, Branch Postmaster Naryana Branch Office in account with
Khour SO, Gramin Dak Sevak, Branch Postmaster Bhalwal Branch
Office in account with Jourian SO, all under Jammu Tawi HO,
Gramin Dak Sevak, Branch Postmaster Hamirpur Branch Office in
account with Dialachck SO under Kathua Head Office and Gramin
Dak Sevak, Branch Postmaster Sangrampur Branch Office in account
with Talab Tillo, SO under Jammu Tawi HO.
22.In view of the admitted position that four posts are presently lying
vacant, the appellants can conveniently be accommodated against
those vacancies, which would effectively resolve the controversy
without causing prejudice to the respondents.
23.Upon consideration of the impugned judgment of the learned Writ
Court, we are persuaded to hold that in view of the subsequent
developments and the material brought on record by the appellants,
duly admitted by the respondents, the judgment dated 07.03.2024
cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside. It is, accordingly, set
aside, and this LPA is disposed of in terms of the following
directions:-
(i) The action of the respondents in cancelling the Advertisement
Notification vide order dated 28.10.2017 is hereby quashed.
(ii) The respondents shall offer appointment to appellant No. 1
against any one of the four vacant posts of Gramin Dak Sevak,
namely: (1) Branch Postmaster, Naryana Branch Office in
account with Khour Sub Office under Jammu Tawi Head
LPA No. 177/2024 Page 11 of 12
Office; (2) Branch Postmaster, Bhalwal Branch Office2026:JKLHC-JMU:443-DB
inaccount with Jourian Sub Office under Jammu Tawi Head
Office; (3) Branch Postmaster, Hamirpur Branch Office in
account with Dialachack Sub Office under Kathua Head Office;
and (4) Branch Postmaster, Sangrampur Branch Office in
account with Talab Tillo Sub Office under Jammu Tawi Head
Office, as per his option, and upon such option being exercised,
he shall be allowed to join accordingly.
(iii) Appellant No. 2 shall be considered for appointment against the
remaining vacancies of Gramin Dak Sevaks, after appellant No.
1 exercises his option, but subject to completion of the requisite
formalities.
24.Disposed of as above along with connected CM(s), if any.
(Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli)
Judge Chief Justice
Jammu
19.02.2026
Madan Verma-Secy
Whether order is speaking? Yes.
Whether order is reportable? Yes.
LPA No. 177/2024 Page 12 of 12
