-
by sayum
03 March 2026 2:58 PM
“Board Incorporated a Qualification Neither in Advertisement Nor in Draft Rules” – In a significant pronouncement reinforcing constitutional guarantees in public employment, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order quashing the select and wait list for the post of Knitting Instructor, Divisional Cadre Jammu.
The Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem held that the Services Selection Board had “clandestinely” added qualifications midway through the recruitment process, thereby rendering the entire selection “invalid ab initio” and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Both writ petitions challenging the Tribunal’s order were dismissed.
Advertisement Prescribed “10+2 with Diploma in Knitting from ITI”
The recruitment process commenced with Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 2012 dated 28 December 2012, inviting applications for seven posts of Knitting Instructor, Divisional Cadre Jammu. The qualification prescribed was unequivocal — “10+2 with Diploma in Knitting from ITI.”
Candidates, including the petitioners and respondent No.1 (Sheetal), applied and were shortlisted for interview.
However, during the currency of the interview process, the Board sought clarification from the Indenting Department regarding candidates holding Diplomas in Textile, Textile Technology, Handloom Textile and similar courses. Subsequently, Notification No. DIP/K-2870 was issued, stating that candidates possessing Diploma in Knitting/Textile from a recognized Institution/ITI would be eligible.
On culmination of the process, candidates possessing qualifications such as Diploma in Handloom Technology and Diploma in Textile Technology (Spinning) were selected.
Respondent No.1, who did not make the grade, challenged the select list before the Tribunal, which quashed the selection on the ground that the criteria had been changed midway.
“Changing the Criteria Midway Amounts to Arbitrary and Discriminatory Action”
The High Court closely examined whether the so-called clarification merely aligned the advertisement with draft Recruitment Rules or whether it introduced new qualifications beyond the notified criteria.
The Court found that even the draft Recruitment Rules prescribed “10+2 with Diploma in Knitting/Textile from a recognized Institution/ITI.” However, selected candidates possessed qualifications like Diploma in Handloom Technology and Textile Technology (Spinning), which were neither mentioned in the advertisement nor in the draft Rules.
The Bench categorically observed:
“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.”
Holding the action constitutionally infirm, the Court declared:
“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.”
Un-Notified Draft Recruitment Rules Cannot Override Advertisement
One of the principal defences raised was that the advertisement was inconsistent with draft Recruitment Rules and the clarification was intended to bring the process in conformity with those Rules.
Rejecting this submission, the Court held that un-notified draft Recruitment Rules lack legal sanctity and cannot override the criteria published in the advertisement.
“The un-notified draft Recruitment Rules even cannot be made the basis for the selection and recruitment against a substantive post.”
The Court further noted that even those draft Rules did not include certain qualifications that were ultimately considered. This, according to the Bench, demonstrated that the Board “never intended to apply their draft Rules in making recruitment to the post in question.”
The entire selection was thus held to be “invalid ab initio.”
“Estoppel by Participation” Not a Shield Against Constitutional Illegality
The petitioners argued that Respondent No.1, having participated in the selection process, was estopped from challenging it after being unsuccessful.
The Court firmly rejected this plea, distinguishing between accepting a procedure and acquiescing in illegality.
Relying upon Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar and Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar, the Bench observed:
“Estoppel by 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… and violates constitutional provisions palpably apparent on the face of the selection process.”
The Court emphasized that an unsuccessful candidate cannot be shut out from challenging a process where the criteria was undisclosed or altered without notice.
Deemed Service of Notice Under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act
On the plea that the petitioners were condemned unheard before the Tribunal, the Court examined the record and found that notices had been issued through registered post.
Invoking Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and relying on Krishna Swaroop Agarwal v. Arvind Kumar and Shimla Development Authority v. Santosh Sharma, the Bench held that service through registered post constitutes deemed service in the absence of proof to the contrary.
The plea of violation of natural justice was accordingly rejected.
“Eligibility Criteria Cannot Be Changed Midway” – Constitution Bench Reaffirmed
The Bench referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2025), reiterating:
“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… Even if such change is permissible… the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.”
Applying this settled principle, the High Court concluded that the addition of qualifications not disclosed in the advertisement or Rules was constitutionally impermissible.
Selection Held a Nullity; Tribunal’s Order Upheld
Finding the illegality “discernible and widespread,” the Court held that it was neither possible nor necessary to segregate beneficiaries. The matter was left to the competent authority to take remedial steps in accordance with law.
“We do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned Order and Judgment passed by the Tribunal. The same is, thus, upheld.”
Both writ petitions were dismissed and interim directions vacated.
The judgment stands as a reaffirmation that transparency in recruitment is not a procedural formality but a constitutional mandate. Any deviation from notified eligibility criteria strikes at the heart of equality in public employment and renders the process void.
Date of Decision: 17/02/2026
