Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sapna Devi vs Sheetal on 17 February, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved On: 3rd of December, 2025.
Pronounced On: 17th of February, 2026.
Uploaded On: 17th of February, 2026.
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: Full.
WP (C) No. 628/2022
1. Sapna Devi, Age: 33 Years
D/O Mohan Lal
R/O Village Bhangal, Tehsil & District Reasi.
2. Arshad Bano, Age: 39 Years
D/O Jamat Ali
R/O H. No. 251, Bathindi, Jammu.
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr Abhinav Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr Abhirash Sharma, Advocate.
V/s
1. Sheetal
D/O Krishan Kumar Verma
R/O A/P H. No. 2A, Lala Hans Raj Park,
Near Mansar Hotel, Jammu.
... Respondent
2. UT of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
cum Secretary to Govt., Department of Industries
& Commerce, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
3. Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board,
Through its Chairman Heena Complex, Sector-3,
Channi Himmat, Jammu.
4. Secretary, J&K Services Selection Board, Jammu.
5. Yogal S/O Sh. Yash Pal R/O Bhalara, Bhaderwah,
District Doda.
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 2 of 17
6. Rahul Sharma S/O Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma R/O
Mirpuran, Kathua.
... Proforma Respondents
Through: -
Ms Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr Raman Sharma, AAG; and
Mr Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG.
CLUBBED WITH:
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
J&K Services Selection Board through its Secretary,
CPO Chowk, Panjtirthi, Jammu.
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Ms Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr Raman Sharma, AAG; and
Mr Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG.
V/s
1. Sheetal
D/O Krishan Kumar Verma
R/O H. No. 2 A, Lala Hansraj Park,
Near Mansar Hotel, Jammu.
... Respondent
2. Sapna Devi D/O Mohan Lal R/O Village Bhangal,
Tehsil & District Reasi.
3. Arshad Bano D/O Jamat Ali R/O House No. 251,
Bathindi, Jammu.
4. Commissioner/ Secretary to Government,
Department of Industries & Commerce, Civil
Secretariat, Jammu.
... Proforma Respondents
Through: -
Mr Abhinav Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr Abhirash Sharma, Advocate.
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 3 of 17
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
(JUDGMENT)
SHAHZAD AZEEM-J:
01. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the legal pregnability of the
Order and Judgment dated November 16, 2021 passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, Jammu [the Tribunal] in TA No.
61/6718/2020 titled 'Sheetal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors.',
whereby the Tribunal while partially allowing the TA filed by the
Respondent No.1 herein (Applicant before the Tribunal) went onto quash the
select list as well as wait list for the post of Knitting Instructor, Divisional
Cadre Jammu qua the Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 herein,
(Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 before the Tribunal) and also the notification No.
DIP/K-2870 issued by the Respondent No.4, respectively.
FACTS:
02. These two clubbed Petitions arise out of same impugned Order,
therefore, we propose to dispose of by this common judgment. Since, WP (C)
No. 628/2022 is the lead case, therefore, reference to the parties shall be made
in the same order.
03. The relevant facts in brief are that the Respondent No.4 has
initiated the process of selection for 07 posts of Knitting Instructor,
Divisional Cadre Jammu, in pursuance of a reference received from the
Indenting Department, i.e., the Department of Industries and Commerce, out
of which three posts were earmarked for OM category, as such, the J&K
Services Selection Board [the Board] issued advertisement notice No. 03 of
2012, dated December 28, 2012, whereby applications were invited and, inter
alia, basic qualification was prescribed as 10 +2 with Diploma in Knitting
from ITI.
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 4 of 17
04. Accordingly, the Petitioners, Respondents No.1, 5 and 6,
respectively, have also applied and were shortlisted for interview.
Consequently, vide notification dated February 06, 2016, they were called
for interview and same was scheduled to be held on February 13, 2016.
05. However, during the currency of interview process and
particularly after the interviews of the parties herein, vide communication
dated February 25, 2016, the Respondent No.4 sought a clarification from the
Indenting Department, that the candidates who possess Degree/ Diploma in
Textile/ Textile Technology/ Handloom Textile and certificates in Cutting,
Tailoring, Knitting, etc., from other Institutes have also applied and have
been shortlisted, whether can be considered for the post of Knitting
Instructor.
06. The Indenting Department, vide communication dated March
18, 2016, clarified that the prescribed qualification as per the departmental
recruitment rules shall be treated as the qualification.
07. The Board issued and published a notification in a local Daily,
being No. DIP/K-2870, whereby it was notified, that all the candidates
shortlisted for the post of Knitting Instructor, Divisional Cadre Kashmir/
Jammu advertised vide notification No. 03 of 2012, Item No. 207 and 02 of
2014, Item No. 150, possessing Diploma in Knitting/ Textile from a
recognized Institution/ ITI, are informed that their interview, if not held
earlier, shall be conducted on June 09, 2016 at the respective Offices of the
Board at Srinagar/ Jammu.
08. On culmination of the selection process, the proforma
Respondents No. 5 and 6 and Petitioner No.2, respectively, were shown to
have been selected under OM category, whereas, the Petitioner No.1 was
included in the Waiting List under OM category.
09. Since, the Respondent No.1 could not make the grade, therefore,
she had challenged the Select List, published under No. DIP/J-10798, dated
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 5 of 17
March 14, 2017, qua the Petitioners and proforma Respondent Nos. 5 and 6,
respectively. Challenge was also thrown to the notification No. DIP/K-2870
and also sought direction to select and appoint her against the post of Knitting
Instructor, Divisional Cadre Jammu. This Writ Petition, being SWP No.
2166/2017, filed by the Respondent No.1, later on, came to be transferred to
the Tribunal and was registered as, TA No. 61/6718/2020.
FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:
10. While partially allowing the TA, the Tribunal has proceeded on
the premise that the official Respondents have committed illegality by
changing the criteria midway the selection process. In this regard, the
findings of the Tribunal can be traced in Paragraph No. 17 of the impugned
Order and Judgment, and same reads thus:
“17. Looking to the facts of the case as discussed above and the
settled law, indisputably, the official respondents disregarded the settled
position of law that criteria cannot be changed midway the selection
process and proceeded to change the criteria by adding more educational
diplomas to the criteria prescribed in the advertisement in violation of law.
The official respondents while considering other qualifications did not
consider the educational qualification of applicant and thereby
discriminated against her and violated her right to equal treatment under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and this action of the Respondents
is totally illegal, arbitrary. It also comes out that the notification no. DIP/K-
2870 issued by Respondent No.3 prescribing additional criteria is not
supported by any recruitment rules or documentation and has apparently
been whimsically inserted by the respondents in the selection process.”
Therefore, while showing indulgence, the Tribunal had formed
the opinion that the selection criteria has been changed midway and said
criteria was not supported by the recruitment rules or documentation, thus
right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated.
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 6 of 17
CHALLENGE:
11. The Writ Petition-WP (C) No. 628/2022 titled ‘Sapna Devi &
Anr. v. Sheetal & Ors.‘ came to be filed by Sapna Devi-Petitioner No.1, a
Waiting List candidate and Arshad Bano-Petitioner No.2, figuring at S. No.3
in the Select List, dated March 14, 2017, for the post of Knitting Instructor
under OM category, respectively. Likewise, the second Writ Petition-WP (C)
No. 1670/2023 has been filed by the Services Selection Board.
11.1. The submission of the Petitioners in WP (C) No. 628/2022 is
that they did not receive notice at any stage, as such, they are condemned
unheard.
11.2. The further contention of the Petitioners is that the Writ/ TA was
not maintainable because of non-joinder of necessary parties, in that, the
candidates selected under RBA category, namely, Anuradha, was not
impleaded as party Respondent and, if at all the selection was bad, in that
event, the entire selection list was required to be challenged.
11.3. The bone of contention of the Petitioners is that the Respondent
No.1, who had challenged the selection of the Petitioners, was herself not
holding the requisite qualification, therefore, no Writ or TA, at her instance
being an ineligible candidate, was maintainable in law.
11.4. According to the Petitioners, the Tribunal failed to take into
consideration that advertisement was contrary to the draft Recruitment Rules
and, subsequently, a clarification was issued and published in the local Daily
making the Diploma holders in Textile/ Knitting, either from recognized
Institute or from ITI, eligible and there was no challenge to the selection at
the instance of any aggrieved candidate.
11.5. Further ground of challenge is that the candidates who came to
be selected for the post of Knitting Instructor from Kashmir Division, in
pursuance of advertisement notice No. 06 of 2013 dated May 10, 2013 and
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 7 of 17
No. 02 of 2014 dated December 30, 2014, were also possessing the same
qualification and were appointed, but the selection of the Petitioners has been
quashed.
11.6. It is also urged that the Respondent No.1, before participating in
the selection process, was aware of the clarification issued by the Respondent
No.2 which was notified, yet the Respondent No.1 participated in the
selection process and did not challenge the same before selection and it is
only when she could not make the grade, took a u-turn and challenged the
selection of the Petitioners which is not permissible under law. It is also stated
that by now the Petitioners stood formally appointed, but the Respondents
did not question their appointment orders and have served for a period of
almost five years.
11.7. The Writ Petition-WP (C) No. 1670/2023 filed by the Board,
mainly proceeds on the premise that the Respondent No.1-Sheetal, who has
challenged the selection process, was not holding the requisite qualification
as she had only undergone six months vocational training course from
District Industries Centre, Jammu and same was not meeting the
requirements of qualification prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules.
Therefore, the Respondent No.1, being herself ineligible, and thus no Writ
Petition at the instance of an ineligible candidate was maintainable in law.
11.8. The Board submitted that, alongside the Diploma certificate
possessed by the Respondent No.1, the candidates who were holding the
certificate in Crafts issued by the Social Welfare Department were also not
considered by the Board, as same was at variance with the qualification
prescribed under the recruitment Rules.
11.9. In order to buttress their respective stands and further, while
questioning the legality of the impugned Order and Judgment of the Tribunal,
the learned Counsels for the Petitioners have vehemently argued that since
the qualification prescribed under the advertisement notification was at
variance with the Recruitment Rules, therefore, during the process of
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 8 of 17
selection, by way of clarification, the notification came to be issued whereby
the qualification prescribed under the Recruitment Rules was made
applicable to the selection process, therefore, the question of midway
changing the criteria does not arise, however, the Tribunal did not appreciate
this aspect of the matter in its right perspective, as such, erred in quashing the
Select List and the consequent notification issued by the Board. Hence,
prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order under challenge
passed by the Tribunal.
11.10. On the other hand, the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were set ex-
parte. However, the Respondent No.1 has filed the Objections, but again the
Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 failed to file the Objections, despite, pre-emptory
Order came to be passed on February 03, 2025.
11.11. Be it noted that insofar as the Respondents No. 3 and 4 are
concerned, their possible version can be glimpsed from the WP (C) No.
1670/2023 titled ‘J&K Services Selection Board v. Sheetal & Ors.’.
11.12. At the same time, the Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions is
the same and has filed Objections in WP (C) No. 628/2022. Surprisingly, the
Respondent No.1, in her preliminary submissions, specifically stated that she
is not interested for the post in question and also in pursuing the litigation.
Therefore, made prayer for deletion of her name from the array of
Respondents. Insofar as parawise reply is concerned, same is evasive and
there is no specific denial.
ANALYSIS:
12. The issue under consideration is concerning the selection to the
post of Knitting Instructor, Divisional Cadre Jammu, initiated way back in
the year 2012. The Respondent No.1, after having failed to make the grade
in the selection process, challenged the selection of the Petitioners herein and
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, respectively, mainly on the ground that the criteria
of selection has been changed midway and, as a result thereof, many
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 9 of 17
ineligible candidates were also allowed to participate in the interview for the
post of Knitting Instructor.
13. Before touching the nub of the controversy and to begin with,
we wish to deal with the point raised by the Petitioners that they have been
condemned unheard. According to the Petitioners, they have neither received
notices in Writ Petition nor in TA, therefore, the impugned Order has been
passed at their back and in violation of the rules of natural justice.
Accordingly, we waded through the record.
14. On perusal of the record, it appears that notices to the
Respondents (including the Petitioners herein) came to be issued vide Order
dated September 01, 2017 and were sent through registered post on the given
addresses. There is a specific noting on the file regarding deemed service of
the Respondents. It is further seen that when the Writ Petition was transferred
to the Tribunal, the Respondents No. 4 to 7 (including Petitioners herein)
were set ex-parte, after the parties having failed to appear despite expiry of
statutory period.
15. There is no averment worth the name made that the addresses of
the Petitioners either were wrong or no notice has been issued. Under these
circumstances, what was required to be done was to send notice through post
by pre-paid registered letter containing the correct addresses. A reference in
this regard can be made to Section 27 of the General Clauses, as interpreted
by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Krishna Swaroop Agarwal V. Arvind
Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1458″, wherein it was held that if service is
made through Registered Post, it is deemed to have been made in accordance
with law.
16. In “Shimla Development Authority and Ors V. Santosh
Sharma (SMT) and Anr; (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 637″, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when notice is sent to the Respondents, but
neither the un-served notice nor the acknowledgement cards have so far been
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 10 of 17
received from the Respondents, in such scenario, notice must be deemed to
have been served on them.
17. Keeping in view the mandate of Section 27 of the General
Clauses Act, as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the plea raised by
the Petitioners regarding non-receipt of the notice is not tenable, as it lacks
legal force, accordingly, same is turned down.
18. We shall now proceed to deal with the main issue that falls for
consideration.
19. The precise submission of the Respondent No.1 before the
Tribunal was that ineligible candidates, who were holding Diploma in
Textile, Textile Technology, Handloom Textile, etc., were made eligible by
changing the selection criteria midway, thereby converting merit into demerit
and vice versa.
20. On the other hand, the stand of the Petitioners in these Writ
Petitions is that the Respondent No.1, having participated in the selection
process and found ineligible, thus, has no locus to question the selection
process and, secondly; the criteria has never been changed midway the
selection process, but the selection criteria notified in the advertisement were
brought into conformity with the draft Recruitment Rules and it was duly
published, thus, neither the Board had made any addition dehors the Rules
nor changed the criteria midway the selection process. Therefore, the
Tribunal had erred by quashing the selection.
21. In order to determine the point of maintainability of the TA in
view of the ineligibility of the Respondent No.1, coupled with her
participation in the selection process, the reference to the advertisement
notification; Recruitment Rules (Draft) and the qualification of the
Petitioners and contesting private respondents assumes importance.
22. The qualification prescribed in the advertisement notification
for the post of Knitting Instructor was 10+2 with Diploma in Knitting from
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 11 of 17
ITI. The Petitioners have also placed on record two other advertisement
notifications, being No. 06 of 2013 dated May 10, 2013; whereby 12 posts of
Knitting Instructors were advertised for Kashmir Division prescribing the
educational qualification as 10+2 with Diploma in Knitting/ Textile from
recognized Institutes/ ITI. The second notification No. 02/2014 dated
December 30, 2014 also pertains to Divisional Cadre Kashmir, whereby one
post of Knitting Instructor was advertised and the educational qualification
for the said post was prescribed as Matric with Diploma in Knitting.
Therefore, one would find that there was no uniformity regarding the
educational qualification, though all the advertisements were issued in a short
span of time by the Board.
23. The details of qualification and status in the selection process of
the parties are given hereinbelow in the tabulated form:
Party Qualification Position in Selection process
Petitioner No.1 Three Years Diploma in Textile S. No.1 of the Waiting List
Designing from the State Board
of Technical EducationPetitioner No.2 Diploma in Knitting from S. No. 3 of the Select List
Saraswati College of EducationRespondent No.1 Technical Education Certificate Participated in interview, but
in Knitting Trade from Knitting did not figure in any lists.
Trade Centre, DIC, JammuRespondent No.5 Diploma in Handloom S. No. 1 of the Select List
TechnologyRespondent No.6 Diploma in Textile Technology S. No. 2 of the Select List.
(Spinning)
24. Therefore, from the above, it is seen that the qualifications of
the candidates were either deficient in the required educational standards or
found to be invalid due to issues with Institutions from which they were
obtained.
25. At this juncture, an important point having bearing on the
eligibility criteria for the post in question needs attention that till the time
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 12 of 17
selection was made, no statutory Recruitment Rules were in place, however,
the assertion of the Petitioners is that the Department had followed the draft
Recruitment Rules. But again, the draft Recruitment Rules prescribed
minimum qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Knitting
Instructor as, 10+2 with Diploma in Knitting/ Textile from a recognized
Institution/ ITI. It is also correct that the notification issued by the Board, by
way of clarification being No. DIP/K-2870, was conforming to these draft
Recruitment Rules.
26. When one reads the purported clarificatory notification issued
by the Board in conjunction with the draft Recruitment Rules issued by the
Department of Industries and Commerce, at first blush, the stand of the
Petitioners appears to be convincing and also appealing. Nevertheless, the
issue that requires consideration is that as to whether the Board has genuinely
intended to consider solely those candidates who satisfied the qualification
as prescribed under the draft Recruitment Rules.
27. Advantageous reference, in this regard, may be made to
Paragraph No.15 of the impugned Order of the Tribunal, wherein it has been
observed that the Respondent-Yogal holds a Diploma in Handloom
Technology, the diploma of Respondent-Rahul Sharma is with regard to
Textile Technology (Spinning), the Respondent-Arshad Bano has acquired
the Diploma from Saraswati College of Education, Delhi, which is not a
recognized Institute, and the Respondent No.7-Sapna Devi is having
Diploma in Textile Designing and, therefore, not eligible for being appointed
as Knitting Instructor.
28. At this stage, we take a pause and refer to WP (C) No.
1670/2023, where the Board, in Paragraph 1 (d), had specifically asserted that
the issue of consideration of Diploma courses like Diploma in Knitting/
Textile/ Handloom for the post in question was considered and it was decided
by the JKSSB that the Diploma in Handloom Technology, Knitting from
recognized Institute/ ITI shall be considered for the post of Knitting
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 13 of 17
Instructor. True to the assertion of the Board in its Petition-WP (C) No.
1670/2023 and, as observed by the Tribunal in the impugned Order, the
selected candidate-Respondent No.5 (Yogal), under OM category at S. No.1,
has been possessing Diploma in Handloom Technology. Similarly, though
the Petitioner-Arshad Bano was selected and shown at S. No.3 of the Select
List, but in the remarks column, it has been mentioned that the
recommendation is withheld and is subject to clarification with regard to
validity of Diploma and the same observation has been made by the Tribunal
also that said candidate had acquired the Diploma from the Saraswati College
of Education, Delhi which is not a recognized Institute. Therefore, it is
established that the Board not only deviated from the recruitment criteria
prescribed under Advertisement Notification, but also not adhered to the draft
recruitment Rules, as such plea of the petitioners that no criteria was changed
midway is not tenable.
29. It is noteworthy that neither any clarification nor any
notification is placed on record showing that, while aligning the educational
qualification for the post of Knitting Instructor with the draft Recruitment
Rules, Diploma in Handloom Technology, was added/ incorporated,
therefore, we are in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal that the
Board did not clarify the recruitment criteria by aligning the same even with
the draft Recruitment Rules, but incorporated a qualification which neither
finds its mention in the advertisement notification nor in the draft
Recruitment Rules, so much so, same is also not notified to the knowledge of
all and sundry. Therefore, changing the criteria midway or after the selection
process amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory action, being violative of the
constitutional principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
30. Here, we are confronted with a case where the selection process
involves blatant violations that vitiates it ab initio such as inclusion of
patently ineligible candidates, therefore, in such a situation, estoppel by
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 14 of 17
participation in the selection process would not come in the way of
Respondent No.1 in questioning the selection process which is marred by
glaring procedural irregularities, mala fides, inasmuch as violates
constitutional provisions palpably apparent on the face of the selection
process.
31. The un-notified draft Recruitment Rules even cannot be made
the basis for the selection and recruitment against a substantive post. Once
the Petitioners have themselves relied upon three advertisement notifications
issued by the Board for recruitment to the post of Knitting Instructor, wherein
the qualification prescribed was not in line with the draft Rules, inasmuch as
finally a qualification which even was not mentioned in the draft Recruitment
Rules was taken into consideration, in that event, the plea of the Petitioners
that the recruitment was made as per the draft Recruitment Rules is also bereft
of legal sanctity because such un-notified draft Recruitment Rules legally
cannot override the educational qualification or the criteria of selection as
notified in the advertisement notification. Once it is shown that the selected
candidates possessed the qualification not prescribed by draft Recruitment
Rules, in that event, we have no hesitation in holding that the Board never
intended to apply their draft Rules in making recruitment to the post in
question. Therefore, the whole selection process is vitiated, being invalid ab
initio.
32. In the case on hand, the successful candidate possessed the
qualification which is neither borne out from the advertisement notification
nor prescribed by the draft Recruitment Rules, so much so, same is also not
published, therefore, there was no occasion for the unsuccessful candidate to
know the criteria of selection, thus, such an unsuccessful candidate cannot be
shut out from challenging the process of selection. We are fortified in our
view by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in ‘Ramjit Singh
Kardam & Ors. V. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors., (2020) 20 Supreme Court
Cases 209′, wherein held:
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 15 of 17
“45. The Division Bench of the High Court is right in its
conclusion that the selection criteria, which saw the light of the day
along with declaration of the selection result could be assailed by the
unsuccessful candidates only after it was published. Similarly,
selection process which was notified was never followed and the
selection criteria which was followed was never notified till the
declaration of final result, hence, the writ petitioners cannot be
estopped from challenging the selection. We, thus, hold that the writ
petitions filed by the petitioners could not have been thrown on the
ground of estoppel and the writ petitioners could very well challenge
the criteria of selection applied by the Commission, which was
declared by the Commission only at the time of declaration of the final
result. We, thus, answer Points 1 and 2 as follows:
45.1. The writ petitioners, who had participated in the
selection are not estopped from challenging the selection in the facts
of the present case.
45.2. The writ petitioners could have very well challenged the
criteria of selection, which was declared by the Commission only in
the final result declared on 10-4-2010.”
33. Reference on the above proposition can also be made to what
has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Dr. (Major) Meeta
Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 17′ and
relevant para reads as follows:
“17. However, we must differentiate from this principle
insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection
process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in
it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory
rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same
cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it.
The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any
manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to
assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the
Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process.”
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 16 of 17
34. Coming to the point that as to whether selection criteria can be
changed midway or after the selection is over, the law in this regard is well
settled by series of the Judgments right from ‘Om Prakash Shukla v.
Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285′ to ‘Madan Lal & Ors. V.
State of J&K and Ors., (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 486’ and upto the
latest judgment of 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
passed in ‘Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Cout & Ors.,
(2025) Supreme Court Cases 1′, wherein, after taking note of the earlier
decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court summed up as follows:
“65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list,
notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be
changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant
Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the
extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the
extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the
requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of
non-arbitrariness;”
35. In view of the above discussion and legal position on the subject,
we are of the opinion that in view of the palpable illegality committed by the
Board in adding qualification clandestinely midway the selection process, in
that event, the selection and appointment of the Petitioners was a nullity in
the eyes of law and, thus, we also hold that no midway change doctrine is
applicable to the case on hand on all fours, therefore, the selection being not
only outcome of mala fide, but also fails the test of non-arbitrariness under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
36. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the illegality
and mischief is so discernible and widespread, affecting the result, so as to
make it difficult to pick out the candidates who have been unlawfully
benefitted or wrongly deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible
nor necessary in the present proceedings to thrash the legality of those select
lists which are not before us because the challenge is in personam and not in
WP (C) No. 628/2022 c/w
WP (C) No. 1670/2023
Page 17 of 17
rem, therefore, we leave it to the competent authority to look into the matter
in view of our observations and to take remedial steps within the contours of
law.
37. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any illegality or
perversity in the impugned Order and Judgment passed by the Tribunal. The
same is, thus, upheld. Accordingly, both these Writ Petitions shall stand
dismissed, along with pending CM(s), if any. Interim direction(s), if any,
shall stand vacated.
38. Registry to place a copy of this Judgment across both these files.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
JAMMU
17th, February, 2026
"TAHIR"
i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes.
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
