State Cannot 'Pick & Choose' In Selection Process, Must Provide Non-Discriminatory Reasons For Appointment: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that when exceptionally qualified candidates are not offered appointments, the State must provide valid and non-discriminatory reasons for its decision. The State, especially when it functions as an employer, is obligated to adhere to the principles outlined in Article 14 of the Constitution, it emphasised.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani made these observations while addressing a petition filed by a candidate who alleged that despite being the most meritorious applicant in a selection process conducted by the J&K Sports Council, he was not offered the appointment. Surprisingly, another candidate, who was less qualified and ineligible according to the Advertisement Notice, was appointed, petitioner alleged.

The case originated when the respondent-Council invited applications for various posts, including two driver positions, in Kashmir and Jammu Province.

The petitioner, having met the eligibility requirements, applied for the driver posts and appeared for an interview and test conducted by the Selection Committee. However, despite the petitioner securing higher marks than all other candidates, including respondent 2, the latter was appointed.

Petitioner contended that respondent 2 was ineligible due to exceeding the maximum age limit specified in the Advertisement Notice.

Respondents admitted the factual averments of the petition and acknowledged that the petitioner had scored 8 points compared to respondent 2's 7 points. However, it argued that the appointment decision lies within the employer's discretion, emphasizing that selection does not guarantee an automatic right to employment.

Considering the arguments, Justice Wani answered a crucial questions about the rights of candidates participating in a selection process and whether an employer, especially a "State entity", can selectively make appointments disregarding merit. The court unequivocally held,

"Ours is a country governed by rule of law and arbitrariness is an anathema to the rule of law. When an employer invites applications for filling up a large number of posts, a large number of unemployed youth apply for the same, they spend time in filling the form and pay the application fee and thereafter, spend time to prepare for the examination, as also money to travel to the place, where tests in furtherance of the selection process is held."

The Court while noting that selection does not confer an absolute right to employment observed,

"...State has to give justifiable non-arbitrary reasons for not offering such successful qualified candidates’ appointment, particularly, when the employer is State, as it is bound to act and follow the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot without any reason decline to fill up a post without any lawful justification, which justification must not only be reasonable, should as well be not arbitrary, capricious and whimsical".

While observing that the respondent-Council after undertaking the process of selection qua the post of Drivers in question offered appointment of one post to respondent 2 and denied the said offer to the petitioner herein, that too, overlooking the superior merit of the petitioner, the court said that the inaction of the respondent-Council is arbitrary, capricious and whimsical besides colourable exercise and abuse of power.

In light of the facts and legal principles, the court allowed the petition with the direction to the respondent-Council to appoint the petitioner as a driver and provide him with all consequential benefits, similar to the appointment and benefits granted to respondent 2.

Case Title: Ravinder Singh Vs J&K Sports Council.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 159

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement