Jammu & Kashmir High Court Declines Contempt Action Against SSB Chairman Citing UT Admin's Decision Withdrawing Posts After Reorganisation

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court today refused to initiate contempt action against the Chairman of J&K Service Selection Board for non-compliance of its 2013 direction for undertaking fresh selection process to the posts of Assistant Information Officer Grade-II for which the advertisement was issued in 2006.

A bench of Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh & Justice Javed Iqbal Wani noted that the direction could not be complied with in view of UT Administration's policy decision to withdraw all posts referred to the JKPSC/JKSSB prior to October 31, 2019 for which the selections were not finalized or posts in which there were pending litigations. Thus it observed that the SSB was not in a position to make any appointments pursuant to the selection process.

The petitioners contended that the administrative decision could not nullify the court's order and accused the SSB of wilfully disobeying the court's directions. However, the Court observed, 

"If the said administrative decision was taken specifically to nullify the effect of a judicial order in a particular case, certainly it will amount to violation of the court order. However, in the present case, what is worth considering is that the administrative decision taken on 29.01.2022 was not with regard to a particular case or with specific reference to the order dated 10.05.2013 but was of a general nature which was applicable to all those cases where the selection had not been finalized till the taking of the policy decision and in respect of those posts which were referred to JKPSC/JKSSB prior to 31.10.2019 and where there was litigation and cases were pending in the Court(s). Thus, the said policy decision taken by the Administration does not appear to be attributed only to the case of the petitioners but is of general nature where selection processes could not be finalized..."

It also noted that SSB had constituted a Committee in 2019 for initiating the selection process afresh in terms of the direction of the Division Bench and accordingly, written test and interviews were also held. Meanwhile, policy decision to withdraw the posts was taken and appointments could not be made.

Court said since no direction was issued by the Division Bench to issue appointment orders on the basis of the selection made by the concerned selection authority, it cannot be said that non-appointment of candidates would amount to contempt.

"Selection and appointment are two different and distinct parts of a recruitment process which do not necessarily have to go together...If we keep in mind the aforesaid difference in two processes of recruitment i.e., selection process and subsequent actual appointment process in terms of the recommendations made on completion of the selection process, we will be able to understand properly as to whether contempt has been committed by the respondent in the present case or not."

Expounding further on service jurisprudence, the bench explained that merely because a person has been recommended for appointment by virtue of being included in the select list he does not have a vested right to get appointed. The appointing authority for germane and valid reasons can opt not to appoint any person even if the said person has been recommended for appointment, it underscored.

Based on these observations, the court absolved the SSB of contempt charges and closed the matter.

Case Title: Ishfaq Tantray Vs Khalid Jahangir, Chairman Service Selection Board.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 188

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment