Selected Candidate's Removal Over Fake Certificate Won't Revive Waiting List: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to operate the waiting list for the post of Messieurs (female) after the initially selected candidate was disengaged on account of her 12th pass qualification certificate being found to have been issued by an unrecognized institution.The Court held that once a candidate is selected and appointed...
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to operate the waiting list for the post of Messieurs (female) after the initially selected candidate was disengaged on account of her 12th pass qualification certificate being found to have been issued by an unrecognized institution.
The Court held that once a candidate is selected and appointed upon conclusion of the selection process, the select list stands exhausted, and subsequent dismissal does not revive the waiting list.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while observing that “once a candidate has been selected upon conclusion of the selection process and is appointed to the post, the select list stands exhausted,” held that “the subsequent dismissal of the appointed candidate from the service for whatsoever reason would not revive either the select list or the waiting list.”
The Court was hearing a petition filed by one Bisma Bashir seeking a direction upon the respondents to issue formal order of engagement in her favour for the post of Messieurs (female) in the Associated Hospital of Government Unani Medical College, Ganderbal.
Vide a Notification two posts of Messieurs (one male and one female) were advertised. Pursuant to the advertisement, thirteen applications were received, and a written test was conducted. The selection list was published as per which Humaira Jan, who secured 14 marks out of 60, was selected for the post of Messieurs (Female), while the petitioner, who secured 12 marks out of 60, figured at Serial No.1 in the waiting list.
After issuance of appointment order in favour of Humaira Jan, she joined the college. Verification of her testimonials revealed that her 12th pass qualification certificate was issued by Delhi State Open School, which was reported to be not recognized/affiliated with the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. Consequently, the engagement order issued in favour of Humaira Jan was cancelled ab initio.
Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation seeking operation of the waiting list, which was not done, prompting the filing of the writ petition. The respondents contended that the select list was issued on 11.09.2021, and the waiting list had a validity of only one year, which had already expired by the time the engagement of Humaira Jan was cancelled on 25.10.2022.
Court's Observation:
The Court noted that the factual aspects were not in dispute. The petitioner's contention was that because the engagement of Humaira Jan was cancelled ab initio, it was deemed that the post had fallen vacant on the date of issuance of her engagement order, and on that date, the waiting list was still alive and could have been operated.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. G. Ramesh (2021) 14 SCC 404. wherein the Supreme Court held that once the selection process was complete and appointment had been made, the select list stood exhausted, and the subsequent dismissal would not revive the select list or result in the appointment of the next candidate.
The Court extracted the relevant observation from Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. , wherein the Supreme Court held,
“.. When once the selection process is complete and appointment had been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the post leaves the same, it must be treated as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the appropriate rules should be taken.”
Applying the ratio to the present case, the Court held,
“.. Once Humaira Jan had joined after her selection, the select list stood exhausted. She may have secured appointment on the basis of a fraudulent certificate, as a consequence whereof her services were disengaged but that would not make any difference to the validity of the select list/waiting list. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek a direction for operation of the waiting list.”
The Court further noted that the post was filled up on an academic arrangement basis, and the engagement order explicitly stated that the engagement was valid only for one year or till the post was filled up on a regular basis, whichever was earlier.
The Court thus found no merit in the petition and dismissed the same.
Case Title: Bisma Bashir v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)