Remedy Lies Before CAT: J&K&L High Court Rejects Over-Age SI Aspirants' Plea; Cites Rigours Of Administrative Tribunals Act

Delineating the limits of judicial review in recruitment matters, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed two clubbed writ petitions seeking age relaxation for participation in a fresh recruitment process for the post of Sub-Inspector in the J&K Police. Justice Rahul Bharti held that the writ petitions were "fated to suffer an outright dismissal" as the petitioners had approached the Court without first invoking the appropriate statutory remedies and that, in any event, the High Court's jurisdiction in service and recruitment matters stands barred under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.While dismissing the petitions, Justice Bharti remarked, “This Court is meant to examine a decision making done at the end of the decisionmaker/s, in exercise of judicial review jurisdiction. In the present case, there is no such decision before this Court got generated by the petitioners by first approaching the respondents with a grievance, be it at their individual level or collective level...as if this Court holds the key for the petitioners to gain entry in the recruitment/selection process by age relaxation dictate.”Background of the Case:The controversy arose from a long and chequered recruitment history to the post of Sub-Inspector in the J&K Police. Initially, in 2016, 658 posts were advertised. Subsequently, in 2021, another Advertisement Notice was issued for filling 800 posts of Sub-Inspector.Owing to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government granted a one-time age relaxation, enhancing the upper age limit from 28 to 30 years by S.O. 420 of 2021 issued under Rule 176 of the J&K Police Rules, 1960.That recruitment process itself became embroiled in litigation when a writ petition challenged the engagement of a private agency to conduct computer-based tests.Though the writ court initially disqualified the agency, the decision was set aside in appeal and, eventually, the challenge failed. This culminated in the issuance of the final select list on 08.01.2024 and the appointment of selected candidates.The present petitioners, Dinesh Singh Chib and others, though participants in the 2021 process, failed to make it to the final select list. Their grievance surfaced after the issuance of fresh Advertisement Notification No. 02 of 2024 dated 22.11.2024, which invited applications for 669 posts of Sub-Inspector with the upper age limit fixed again at 28 years as on 01.01.2024. Being over-age, the petitioners assailed this notification and sought to seek age relaxation from 28 years to 30 years in light of S.O. No. 62 dated 24.11.2021 and S.O. No. 420 dated 10.12.2021.Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Rudhar Partap Singh, contended that the petitioners were meritorious candidates who were excluded solely on account of age. It was argued that the benefit of age relaxation granted earlier ought to have been extended to the fresh recruitment as well.On the other hand, the Union Territory of J&K and other respondents, represented by Mrs. Monika Kohli, Senior AAG, along with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh and Mr. Nakul Singh, Advocates, opposed the petitions on multiple grounds. It was argued that the age relaxation granted in 2021 was a one-time concession linked specifically to earlier Advertisement Notification and the pandemic-induced delay, and could not be invoked for an entirely new recruitment process.The respondents further raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, asserting that, after the extension of the Administrative Tribunals Act to J&K, the High Court lacked original jurisdiction in service and recruitment matters.Court's Observations and Analysis:At the outset, Justice Bharti traced the factual and procedural backdrop in detail, emphasizing that the petitioners' sole cause of action stemmed from their over-age status vis-à-vis the 2024 advertisement. The Court noted that none of the petitioners were otherwise eligible to participate in the selection process under the terms of the notification.The Court made it clear that S.O. 62 of 2021 was wholly irrelevant, as it pertained to recruitment processes in the Union Territory of Ladakh, whereas S.O. 420 of 2021 was expressly confined to Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2021. The petitioners' attempt to transplant those concessions into a subsequent recruitment was found legally untenable.When the Court confronted counsel for the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the petitions, counsel insisted that the petitions were maintainable and that the respondents' objections should be overruled.Rejecting this, the Court held that even for the sake of argument, the petitions suffered from a "serious lacuna". It noted that the petitioners had directly approached the High Court without first making a case before the competent authority empowered to grant age relaxation.The Court observed, “In the present case, there is no such decision before this Court got generated by the petitioners by first...

Remedy Lies Before CAT: J&K&L High Court Rejects Over-Age SI Aspirants' Plea; Cites Rigours Of Administrative Tribunals Act

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags