The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, has delivered a significant ruling on the implementation of Government Order No. 10-DMRRR of 2019, directing the de-reservation of unfilled posts under the Prime Minister's Special Package for Kashmiri Migrants. The judgment clarifies that while mere inclusion in a merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, executive inaction cannot render a valid policy decision ineffective. This ruling has far-reaching implications for recruitment processes involving reserved categories where eligible candidates are unavailable within specific communities.
Background & Facts
The Genesis of the Dispute
The case involves over 400 applicants, all registered Kashmiri migrants displaced from the Kashmir Valley prior to 1990 due to militancy and security concerns. As part of the Prime Minister's Special Package for Return and Rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants, the Government of India sanctioned 3,000 supernumerary government posts for unemployed Kashmiri migrant youth in 2009. The Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB) issued multiple advertisement notifications between 2010 and 2018 for these posts.
Procedural History
- 2009-2018: JKSSB issued multiple recruitment notifications under the Prime Minister's Package, reserving posts for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Social Castes (OSC), and Actual Line of Control (ALC) categories.
- 2011: The State Government issued a policy decision to de-reserve unfilled SC/ST posts due to the non-availability of eligible candidates within the Kashmiri Pandit community.
- 2015: The Government of India sanctioned an additional 3,000 posts under the package.
- 2019: The State Administrative Council approved Government Order No. 10-DMRRR of 2019, directing the de-reservation of unfilled reserved category posts and their conversion to Open Merit posts.
- 2020: The applicants filed Original Application No. 234/2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, seeking enforcement of the 2019 Government Order.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought the following reliefs:
- Implementation of Government Order No. 10-DMRRR of 2019 for de-reservation of unfilled posts.
- Preparation of selection lists from existing Open Merit lists for the de-reserved posts.
- A direction to the respondents to refrain from filling the vacant posts until the implementation of the Government Order.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question before the Tribunal was whether the respondents could be compelled to implement Government Order No. 10-DMRRR of 2019, which directed the de-reservation of unfilled posts under reserved categories and their conversion to Open Merit posts, particularly when the applicants had already participated in the selection process and were included in the merit lists.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicants
- The applicants contended that they had participated in the selection processes conducted by the JKSSB and were included in the merit lists.
- They argued that the Government Order No. 10-DMRRR of 2019 was a binding policy decision that the respondents were duty-bound to implement.
- The applicants emphasized that the reserved categories (SC/ST/OSC/ALC) were not prevalent within the Kashmiri migrant community, leading to a large number of unfilled posts.
- They relied on the principle that executive inaction cannot render a valid policy decision ineffective.
For the Respondents
- The respondents argued that mere inclusion in a merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
- They contended that de-reservation of posts must comply with statutory procedures, including Section 5 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004.
- The respondents raised concerns about the delay in filing the application, arguing that the claims were stale and could not be entertained after several years.
- They submitted that the implementation of the Government Order was subject to administrative feasibility and the availability of valid merit lists.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal conducted a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing the case:
-
Right to Appointment: The Tribunal reiterated the settled legal position that mere inclusion in a select list does not confer an automatic right to appointment. However, it emphasized that once a policy decision is taken by the competent authority and formalized through a Government Order, the executive is bound to implement it unless the order is withdrawn, modified, or stayed by a court.
-
Implementation of Government Orders: The Tribunal observed that Government Order No. 10-DMRRR of 2019 had not been withdrawn or stayed. The order explicitly directed the recruiting agencies to treat unfilled reserved category posts as Open Merit posts and to prepare selection lists from existing merit lists. The respondents failed to demonstrate any legal or administrative impediment to its implementation.
-
De-Reservation of Posts: The Tribunal noted that the de-reservation of posts was necessitated by the non-availability of eligible candidates within the reserved categories. It held that the respondents could not justify non-implementation of the Government Order on the grounds of administrative delay or procedural technicalities.
-
Continuing Cause of Action: The Tribunal rejected the respondents' plea of limitation and delay, holding that the grievance of the applicants was a continuing cause of action arising from the non-implementation of the 2019 Government Order.
-
Balancing Equities: The Tribunal struck a balance between the applicants' right to consideration and the respondents' administrative discretion. It directed the implementation of the Government Order while clarifying that appointments would be subject to verification of eligibility and fulfillment of statutory requirements.
"Administrative authorities are bound to give effect to their own policy decisions unless the same are withdrawn, modified, or interdicted by a court of law."
The Verdict
The Tribunal allowed the Original Application No. 234/2020 and directed the respondents as follows:
- Implementation of Government Order No. 10-DMRRR of 2019 for de-reservation of unfilled posts under SC, ST, OSC, and ALC categories.
- Preparation and finalization of selection lists from existing Open Merit lists by the JKSSB and other recruiting agencies.
- Consideration of the applicants' cases strictly on the basis of merit, eligibility, and availability of vacancies, without conferring an automatic right to appointment.
- Completion of the entire exercise within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Policy Implementation Is Mandatory
The judgment reinforces the principle that executive policy decisions, once formalized through Government Orders, must be implemented in letter and spirit. Administrative authorities cannot unilaterally delay or refuse implementation without valid legal grounds.
- Actionable Takeaway: Practitioners should emphasize the binding nature of Government Orders and challenge executive inaction through appropriate legal remedies.
De-Reservation Requires Procedural Compliance
While the Tribunal upheld the de-reservation of posts, it implicitly recognized the need for compliance with statutory procedures. The judgment does not dilute the requirement of following due process under laws such as the J&K Reservation Act, 2004.
- Actionable Takeaway: Agencies must ensure that de-reservation of posts is carried out in accordance with applicable statutory provisions and with the approval of competent authorities.
Merit-Based Consideration Prevails
The ruling underscores that merit-based selection remains the cornerstone of recruitment processes, particularly when reserved category posts remain unfilled due to the non-availability of eligible candidates.
- Actionable Takeaway:
- Recruiting agencies should prioritize the preparation of Open Merit lists for de-reserved posts.
- Candidates should ensure their eligibility and documentation are in order to avoid disqualification during verification.
Continuing Cause of Action in Recruitment Disputes
The Tribunal's rejection of the limitation plea highlights that non-implementation of a binding Government Order constitutes a continuing cause of action. This principle is particularly relevant in cases involving delayed or denied benefits under welfare schemes.
- Actionable Takeaway: Practitioners should frame recruitment disputes as continuing causes of action to overcome objections based on delay or limitation.
