Jammu & Kashmir High Court
2026:Jklhc-Jmu:1089-Db vs Sameer Ahmad Khan And Others on 23 April, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1089-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
......
LPA No.213/2022 (Srinagar Wing)
Reserved on: 09.04.2026
Pronounced on: 23.04.2026
Uploaded on: 23.04.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
UT of J&K and others
........Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy.AG
Versus
Sameer Ahmad Khan and others
......Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mian Tufail, Advocate
Mr. M. Saleem Parray, Advocate
LPA no.127/2022 (Jammu Wing)
UT of J&K and others
........Appellant(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr.AAG with
Ms. Saghira Jaffar, assisting counsel
Versus
Sharan Gupta and others
......Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr.Advocate
with Mr. Abhirash Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON‟BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON‟BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
PER OSWAL-J
LPA No.127/2022 (Jammu Wing)
Page 1
LPA No.213/2022
LPA No.127/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1089-DB
1. This intra court appeal is directed against judgement/order dated
09.05.2022 (for short “the impugned judgment”) passed in WP(C)
No.82/2020, titled “Sharan Gupta and others v. UT of J&K and
others“, whereby the learned Writ Court has quashed the order No.08-
JAKEDA of 2019 dated 2nd December 2019, cancelling the selection
process initiated by appellant No.2 pursuant to the Advertisement
Notice No.1 of 2017 for the posts of Assistant Engineer,
Civil/Electrical/Mechanical/ RE and Advertisement Notice No.2 of
2017 for the posts of Junior Engineer, Civil/Electrical/Mechanical/RE,
both dated 12th September 2017, and further the appellants have been
directed to conclude the selection process as far as possible within a
period of four weeks from the date of passing of the impugned
judgement.
2. Appellants, being aggrieved, have assailed impugned judgment,
amongst others, on the ground that the competent authority for the
cogent reasons terminated the selection process and respondents hold
no vested right to challenge the cancellation of the recruitment
process, as it suffered from procedural lapse because it was found that
the agency namely, M/s LM Energy and Software Private Limited,
Gurgaon, Haryana, authorized to conduct the test/examination after
the approval conveyed by the Administrative Department, was
engaged without issuing the Request for Proposal (RFP) or Expression
of Interest (EOI), thus, depriving the other agencies to participate in
the engagement process of the agency for conducting the
examinations. It is also contended that after coming into force of the
Page 2
LPA No.213/2022
LPA No.127/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1089-DB
Reorganisation Act, 2019, fresh Reservation roster has been issued by
the J&K Government including new categories, therefore, it would be
miscarriage of justice, if the present selection process is taken to its
logical end.
3. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr.AAG appearing for appellants, has
submitted that the agency responsible for conducting the examination
was engaged without issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) or an
Expression of Interest (EOI). This failure to invite competitive
participation compromised the transparency of the recruitment
process, necessitating its cancellation. Furthermore, mere participation
in a selection process does not confer a vested right upon the
respondents to challenge an employer’s decision to cancel recruitment,
particularly when such a decision is based on cogent reasons. She
vehemently argued that following the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019,
new reservation categories, including EWS (Economically Weaker
Sections) and PSP (Pahari Speaking People) were incorporated into
the reservation framework. Consequently, the learned Writ Court
erred in quashing the cancellation order.
4. Per contra, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondents submitted that while appellants maintain the
authority to cancel a recruitment process, such power must be
exercised only upon ‘cogent and justified’ grounds. In the present case,
there are no allegations of fraud, malpractice, or unfair means
regarding the examination conducted by the agency. The agency was
hired by appellant No. 2 following formal approval from the
Page 3
LPA No.213/2022
LPA No.127/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1089-DB
competent authority. Consequently, a mere procedural infraction in
the agency’s engagement cannot invalidate an untainted selection
process. It is submitted that the learned Writ Court, therefore, acted
correctly in quashing the cancellation order and upholding the process
of recruitment for the posts of Assistant Engineers (AEs) and Junior
Engineers (JEs).”
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Advertisement Notice Nos. 1 and 2, both dated 12.09.2017, were
issued to fill 77 vacancies across various categories in the J&K
Energy Development Agency (JAKEDA), pursuant to the
Administrative Department’s communication dated 02.08.2017. A
proposal was submitted to engage M/s LM Energy and Software
Private Limited for a confidential assessment. This mandate
encompassed the entire recruitment lifecycle, including the
development of the registration process, conduct of examination, and
the compilation of merit lists and results. Following administrative
approval, the agency was authorized to proceed and subsequently
conducted the written examinations for the advertised posts. However,
it later emerged that the agency had been engaged without the
issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) or Expression of Interest
(EOI). This omission effectively excluded other potential agencies
from the selection process. On this ground, citing a lack of
competitive transparency, the recruitment process was subsequently
cancelled.
Page 4
LPA No.213/2022
LPA No.127/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1089-DB
7. A perusal of the cancellation order dated December 2, 2019, reveals
that the sole justification for terminating the recruitment process was
the non-issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) or Expression of
Interest (EOI) during the selection of the testing agency. Apart from
this specific procedural omission, the order assigns no other reasons to
justify the cancellation. Consequently, the recruitment was scrapped
based purely on a technicality in the engagement of the agency, rather
than any deficiency in the selection process of the candidates
themselves
8. The learned Sr. AAG vehemently contended that mere participation in
a recruitment process does not confer a vested right upon the
respondents to challenge the employer’s decision to cancel the
selection. It was further argued that the employer retains the inherent
authority to terminate the process at any stage, provided such a
decision is supported by cogent and bona fide reasons.
9. To delineate the scope of judicial review regarding the cancellation of
a recruitment process at an advanced stage, it is pertinent to consider
the following landmark judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
(A). 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 upPage 5
LPA No.213/2022
LPA No.127/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1089-DBall 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 candidates, as reflected at the
recruitment test, and 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)
(B). 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)
(C). In Partha Das v. State of Tripura, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844,
the recruitment process for the post of Inspector of Boilers had
reached in its final stage, with only the interview results pending
declaration. However, the process was stalled 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 selectedPage 6
LPA No.213/2022
LPA No.127/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1089-DBcandidates, including 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)
10. By placing reliance on the abovementioned judgements in “Altaf
Hussain v. Union of India“, 2026 SCC OnLine J&K 144, this Court
has observed as under:
“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.”
(emphasis added)
11. We must now determine whether the decision of appellant No. 2 to
cancel the recruitment process bears a rational nexus to the intended
objective. The cancellation order is notably silent regarding any
allegations of irregularity or illegality in the conduct of the
examination by the engaged agency. The mere fact that the agency
Page 7
LPA No.213/2022
LPA No.127/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1089-DB
was hired without providing other entities an opportunity to
participate, while a procedural omission, can hardly be considered a
‘cogent’ ground for cancelling a selection process that has reached an
advanced stage. Crucially, the appellants have not contended that the
agency lacked competence or engaged in malpractices, either during
its engagement or throughout the conduct of the examinations. In
absence of such substantive grounds, appellant No. 2 was not justified
in scrapping the recruitment solely on the basis of a non-issuance of
an RFP or EOI and in fact, the cause projected for cancellation of
recruitment process by the appellants is illusory in nature.
Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention, and it is hereby
rejected.
12. It was further vehemently argued by the learned Sr. AAG that,
following the enactment of the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, a fresh
reservation roster was issued by the Government of Jammu &
Kashmir incorporating new categories. Consequently, it was
contended that the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable.
However, we note that this ground was never cited as a basis for the
original cancellation order. It is a settled principle of law that the
validity of an executive order must be judged on the reasons
mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh grounds in
the memo of appeal or oral submissions. Therefore, the appellants
cannot utilize the Reorganisation Act, 2019, as a shield to justify an
act that had already culminated in the issuance of the cancellation
order on entirely different grounds. In this context, it would be
Page 8
LPA No.213/2022
LPA No.127/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1089-DB
appropriate to take note of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in “Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and others“, (1978) 1 SCC 405. Paragraph
08 thereof is advantageous to be read hereunder:
“The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory
functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its
validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and
cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of
affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the
beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a
challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought
out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose
J. in Gordhandas Bhanji case:
“Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory
authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making the order of
what he meant, or of what was in hiss mind, or what he
intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities
are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect
the actings and conduct of those to whom they are
addressed and must be construed objectively with
reference to the language used in the order itself.”
Thus, this contention of learned Sr. AAG also fails.
13. We have perused the judgement impugned in this appeal. We hardly
find any reason to show indulgence and accordingly dismiss the
appeal being bereft of any merit.
LPA No.213/2022 (Srinagar Wing)
14. In this appeal, pending before the Srinagar Wing of this Court, the
order impugned dated 26th May 2022 in WP(C) no.3749/2019 has
been passed on the basis of the judgment dated 9th May 2022, passed
in WP(C) No.82/2020.
15. Since LPA No. 127/2022, preferred against the aforementioned
judgment dated May 9, 2022, has been dismissed, we find no occasion
Page 9
LPA No.213/2022
LPA No.127/2022
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1089-DB
to reiterate the detailed reasoning and findings already recorded
therein. Consequently, the instant appeal is likewise dismissed on the
same terms.The copy of this judgment be placed on the record of LPA
No.213/2022 (Srinagar Wing).
(Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli)
Judge Chief Justice
JAMMU
23.04.2026
Ajaz Ahmad, Secy
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
Page 10
LPA No.213/2022
LPA No.127/2022