WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 1 of 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND

LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on: 18.03.2024

Pronounced on: 03.04.2024

WP(C) No.1981/2023

DR. RAFI RAMZAN DAR & ORS. ...PETITIONER(S)

Through: - Mr. Arif Sikander, Advocate.

Vs.

UT OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Mubeen Wani, Dy. AG-for R1.

Mr. Shah Aamir, Advocate-for R2&R3.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

Oswal ‘J’

1) The respondent No. 3 vide notification No.09-

PSC(DR-P) of 2021 dated 03.09.2021 invited applications

through online mode for the posts of Assistant Professor

in different disciplines in Government Degree Colleges of

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The applications

were also invited vide notification No.08-PSC(DR-P) of

2021 dated 18.08.2021 for the posts of Physical Training

Instructor in Higher Education Department, Union

Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioners applied

pursuant to the above mentioned notifications for the

posts of Assistant Professor and Physical Training

Instructor, as the case may be. It is claimed that the

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 2 of 22

Public Service Commission vide different notices

shortlisted the petitioners for the interview for the posts

applied for by them. The petitioners, who are 29 in

number, have mentioned the particulars of petitioners

No.1 to 27 only in para (8) of the petition while stating

that they were shortlisted for the interview for the posts,

they had applied for.

2) As per the Notifications (supra), the assessment of

the candidates for the posts of Assistant Professor as well

as Physical Training Instructor was to be made on the

basis of weightage to the academic merit and on the basis

of performance of the candidates in the interview/viva

voce.

3) A meeting was held on 01.09.2022 under the

Chairpersonship of the Chief Secretary to review Rule 45

of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission

(Business and Procedure) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Rules of 2021”). The said meeting was

attended by the Principal Secretary to Government,

Higher Education Department, Secretary to Government,

General Administration Department, Secretary to

Government, Department of Law Justice & Parliamentary

Affairs and Secretary, J&K Public Service Commission. In

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 3 of 22

the aforesaid meeting, it was unanimously decided and

proposed that the selection for the post of Assistant

Professor/Librarian/PTI in Higher Education Department

should be made on the basis of following criteria:

a. Written Examination: 75 Marks

i)Paper-I: Relevant Subject: 60 Marks

ii)Paper-II: General (Multi-disciplinary, General

studies, Indian History and Culture, Constitution of

India, Ability Enhancement etc.): 15 marks

b. Academic Qualification : 10 marks (criterion as

per UGC Regulations)

i)UG/PG (on pro rata basis) : as per UGC

ii)NET/SET/SLET : as per UGC

iii)PH.D : as per UGC

iv)Experience :as per UGC

c. Interview :15 marks

Simultaneously, the respondent No.3 was requested

to place the proposed criteria before the respondent No.2

to carry out the necessary changes in Rule 45 of the

Rules of 2021 and other relevant rules so as to make the

recruitment process fully objective and transparent. It

was also proposed that the respondent No.1 would make

a request to the J&K Public Service Commission and the

J&K Public Service Commission would, after change in

criteria for selection of Assistant Professor/PTI/Librarian,

withdraw the advertised posts and re-advertise the same

as per new criteria adopted by the JK PSC.

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 4 of 22

4) Thereafter the respondent No.1 in terms of

communication dated 22.09.2022 forwarded the minutes

of the meeting held on 01.09.2022 to the respondent

No.2 and thereafter the respondent No.1 vide

communication dated 01.12.2022, requested the JKPSC

to withdraw the posts advertised vide various

notifications including the notifications referred above.

The respondent No. 2 vide notification No.03-PSC (DR-P)

of 2023 dated 01.02.2023 withdrew all the posts

advertised vide different notifications including the

notifications (supra).

5) The petitioners being aggrieved of the

communication dated 22.09.2022 read with notification

No.03-PSC (DR-P) of 2023 dated 01.02.2023, assailed the

same before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Srinagar Bench, and vide order dated 08.02.2023, the

learned Tribunal, while issuing notice in the OA,

disposed of the interim application filed by the petitioners

by directing that the claim of the petitioners shall remain

subject to outcome of the OA. During the pendency of

that application before the learned Tribunal, the

respondent No.2 re-advertised the posts of Assistant

Professor and Physical Training Instructor in the Higher

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 5 of 22

Education Department vide notification No.06-PSC (DR-

P) of 2023 dated 01.03.2023 and notification No.08-PSC

(DR-P) of 2023 dated 01.03.2023. The petitioners being

aggrieved of the aforesaid notifications again invoked the

jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal and while issuing

notice in the matter, the learned Tribunal vide order

dated 25.04.2023 as an ad-interim relief directed the

respondents that any process of selection pursuant to the

notification dated 01.03.2023 shall remain subject to

outcome of the OA. The petitioners approached this

Court through the medium of WP(C) No.1008/2023

thereby challenging order dated 08.02.2023 and WP(C)

No.1009/2023 challenging the order dated 25.04.2023

passed by the learned Tribunal and this Court vide order

dated 08.05.2023, with the consent of learned counsel

for the parties, directed the respondent No.2 not to

proceed with the recruitment process till the disposal of

the application pending before the learned Tribunal.

Thereafter the learned Tribunal, vide judgment dated

26.07.2023, dismissed both the OAs i.e. OA No.89/2023

and OA No.292/2023 preferred by the petitioners and

this is how the petitioners have approached this Court

through the medium of present writ petition for the

purpose of assailing the order dated 26.07.2023 passed

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 6 of 22

by the learned Tribunal in cases titled “Dr. Rafi Ramzan

Dar and others vs. UT of J&K & Ors.”.

6) The petitioners have assailed the order dated

26.07.2023 on the following grounds:

(I) That changing the rules of the game after

the game is played is not permissible but the

learned Tribunal has not appreciated this

issue in its right and proper perspective;

(II) That though a candidate who finds a place

in the select list has no vested right to be

appointed to any post but the employer or

the selecting authority cannot act arbitrarily

and in a malafide manner withdraw the

posts on the ground of change of rules for

selection;

(III) That the applicants were successfully

shortlisted for interview to the posts of

Assistant Professor or Physical Training

Instructor as the case may be, as such, had

a reasonable expectation that they would be

appointed though they have no vested right;

(IV) That the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service

Commission is an autonomous institution

and cannot be controlled by the Government

of Jammu and Kashmir and the process to

review Rule 45 the Rules of 2021 for the

recruitment of Assistant Professors and

Physical Education Instructors in the Higher

Education Department could have been

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 7 of 22

done at the sole discretion of the J&K Public

Service Commission and the Higher

Education Department Government of

Jammu and Kashmir, had no authority or

power vested in them to decide or to take a

call to review any of the provisions of the

Rules of 2021;

(V) That as the respondents could not have

altered the selection criteria while the

process of selection was in midway, the

respondents have adopted an indirect

method of doing it indirectly what they could

not have done directly by withdrawing the

posts in question;

(VI) That the learned Tribunal has not returned

any finding on the issue that despite rule

change, the Public Service Commission has

proceeded with the selection for the posts of

Lecturer/Assistant Professor in various

disciplines of Super Specialty Hospital,

Government Medical College, Jammu, in

Health and Medical Education notified vide

notification dated 17.02.2023;

7) The respondents No.2 and 3 have opposed the writ

petition on the ground that the recruitment for the posts

of Assistant Professor in Higher Education Department is

held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the

concerned Recruitment Rules. The selection procedure/

scheme of selection as laid down in the Recruitment

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 8 of 22

Rules governing the requisitioned posts is followed by the

Commission but where the procedure and/or scheme of

selection has not been provided in the Recruitment

Rules, the Commission is at liberty to lay down its own

criteria for selection, of course, in tune with law.

Accordingly, the Rules of 2021 were notified which

provide the selection procedure/scheme of selection for

the post of Assistant Professor/Librarian/Physical

Training Instructor in Higher Education Department

under Rule 45 of the said Rules. It is stated that as per

aforesaid Rule, 30 points were allotted for interview,

including the demonstration points, 09 points were

allotted for Research, Publications, Books, NCC, Sports,

Gold medal etc. There was no provision for written test

and the candidates were to be shortlisted for interview in

the ratio of 1:3 based on the points obtained out of total

61 points. As per the criteria, the candidates possessing

NET/SLET, JRF and PhD but having marginally less

marks in their UG and PG examinations were not getting

the equal playing filed in the selection process. It is

further stated that the criteria of assessment and

awarding marks in UG/PG courses varies from University

to University and from year to year and there is no

uniform yardstick for awarding marks by all the

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 9 of 22

Universities. The respondent Nos. 2&3 have given an

illustration of the post of Assistant Professor in

Commerce Discipline in respect of open merit category,

where only one post was advertised against which 96

candidates applied and as per old criteria, out of 96

candidates, only 03 candidates can be shortlisted for

participation in the interview leaving 93 candidates

without any chance to participate in the selection

process. The respondents No.2 and 3 have further

demonstrated how two candidates who got 0.13 points

and 0.25 points less than the last candidate in the

provisional shortlist would not be able to participate in

the selection process. The respondents have also

demonstrated that one candidate figuring at serial No.5

has obtained 13.39 points in PG (essential qualification

for the post of Assistant Professor), which is higher than

the candidate at serial No.3 in the provisional shortlist. It

is further stated that considering the operation of older

Rule 45 as harsh and arbitrary towards those candidates

who even did not get the chance to participate in the

competition merely because they have been awarded

marginally less marks in their UG/PG courses, the

amendment in the Rule was made and the posts were

withdrawn. It has been also submitted that many such

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 10 of 22

candidates who were denied the opportunity to

participate in the selection process for recruitment of

Assistant Professors represented to the Commission that

there should be a written examination and short-listing

of the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 for interviews should

be done on the basis of written examination and

weightage for NET/SLET, JRF, PhD etc. may be given to

the successful candidates shortlisted based on the

written test. It is further contended that in order to

amend the rules governing the recruitment of Assistant

Professors so as to follow an objective criteria, the Chief

Secretary, UT of J&K, held a meeting with other officials

& Secretary J&K Public Service Commission on

01.09.2022 and the minutes of the said meeting were

issued on 20.09.2022. The respondent-Commission

further deliberated and decided to amend Rule 45 to

bring uniformity, fairness and transparency into the

selection process and it is obvious that when the

candidates will be selected on the basis of rigorous

competition wherein not only their academic

merit/special attributes but also their subject knowledge

would be tested by way of a written examination, then

the finally selected candidates would be more

meritorious, bright and deserving. The respondents No.2

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 11 of 22

and 3 have further mentioned the break-up of total 100

points under the new Rule 45. It is the stand of the

respondents that the process of selection pursuant to the

notifications mentioned above was only at its initial stage

i.e. scrutiny of documents, preparation of provisional

shortlist of the candidates with deficiencies in documents

and final list for calling the candidates for interview was

not prepared at all and no interviews were conducted.

The petitioners have no vested right whatsoever on these

posts and as the final action was not carried out

pursuant to the advertisement notices made in

2021/2022, therefore, the same were withdrawn by

virtue of notification/order dated 01.02.2023. The

respondents have denied that the amended Rule 45 is in

contravention of the University Grants Commission

Regulations as the amended Rule 45 is intended to lay

down higher standards by prescribing written

examination even for the purpose of short-listing of

candidates than that provided under UGC regulations.

The UGC Regulations relate to the selections made by the

selection committee of colleges whereas in the instant

case the selection is being made by the authority

constituted under Article 315 of the Constitution of India.

In reply to the selections made by the Public Service

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 12 of 22

Commission for the posts of Lecturer/Assistant Professor

in Health and Medical Education Department, it has

been stated that all the posts stood withdrawn and were

advertised later as per the substituted Rule 44. However,

in respect of total 04 posts (i.e. 02 posts in Pediatric

Surgery, one post each in GMC, Jammu/Srinagar Super

Specialty, 01 post of Lecturer Oral & Dental Pathology

and 01 post of Lecturer Conservative and Operative

Dentistry), where the selection was at advanced stage

and due to public hue and cry in absence of proper

facility in these disciplines, the selection was made, as

such, the petitioners cannot draw any parity. It is also

stated that out of 30 writ petitioners, 21 petitioners have

already appeared in the examination conducted on

27.08.2023 and out of these 21 petitioners, 12

petitioners could not even qualify the written test and

only four petitioners qualified for interview and were

selected finally.

8) Precisely, the stand of the respondents No.2 and 3

is that the selection process was at the very initial stage

and the final list of the candidates to be interviewed was

not even prepared and no interview notice was issued

and the petitioners have no case at all.

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 13 of 22

9) Mr. Arif Sikander, learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the petitioners were

shortlisted for interview and, as such, the respondents

could not have arbitrarily withdrawn the posts for which

the petitioners had applied and that too only on the

ground that the criteria for selection was changed for

filling up the posts of Assistant Professor/PTI. He laid

much stress on the ground that in the middle of the

selection process, the respondents could not have

changed the criteria for selection and once the

respondents could not have changed the criteria during

the process of selection, they could not have withdrawn

the posts as it amounted to doing a particular act

indirectly which could not have been done directly. In

support of his arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioners placed reliance upon the following judgments:

(I) East Coast Railway & anr. vs. Mahadev Appa

Rao & Ors, (2010) 7 SCC 678;

(II) Dinesh Kumar Kashap & Ors. vs. South East

Central Railway & Ors. (2019) 12 SCC 798;

(III) Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3

SCC 47;

(IV) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

& Ors. vs. Rajendra Bheem Rao Manway & Ors,

(2001) 10 SCC 51;

(V) K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh &

anr, (2008) 3 SCC 512;

(VI) Tej Kashap Prakesh Pathak & Ors vs. Rajasthan

High Court & Ors. (2013) 4 SCC 540;

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 14 of 22

(VII) Sushil Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs. The High Court

of Jharkhand & anr. (Writ Petition (Civil)

No.753/2023);

(VIII) Sivanandan CT & Ors. vs. High Court of Keral &

Ors. (Writ petition (Civil) No.229 of 2017);

(IX) State of Bihar vs. Shyamanadan Mishra (Civil

Appeal No.7364 of 2014);

(X) Union of India & Ors. vs. Mahendra Singh, SLP

(Civil) No.19886 of 2019;

(XI) Gambhirdan K. Gandhvi vs. State of Gujarat &

Ors, (2022) LiveLaw (SC) 242;

(XII) State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Shyam Sunder & Ors,

(2011) 8 SCC 737;

10) Per contra, Mr. Mubeen Wani, Dy. AG, appearing for

respondent No.1, submitted that it is the prerogative of

the employer to go ahead with the selection process or

not and the petitioners cannot object to the withdrawal of

the posts by the respondents, more particularly when

there was justified reason for withdrawing the posts.

11) Mr. Shah Aamir, learned counsel for respondents

No.2 and 3 submitted that the contention of the

petitioners that the shortlist was issued for interview of

the candidates, is absolutely incorrect because it was a

provisional shortlist only and any candidate who was

aggrieved of the rejection of his/her name in the

provisional shortlist was provided ten days’ time from the

date of publication of the shortlist to make representation

against his/her rejection. Had any candidate been

successful in his/her representation, he or she would

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 15 of 22

have also earned the place in the final shortlist for

conducting interview. He further argued that the un-

amended Rule 45 the Rules of 2021 was operating

harshly against the candidates who were possessed of

points just less than the candidates making out in the

provisional shortlist and in order to get the best talent in

the field, the Rule was amended so as to ensure

participation of large number of candidates. Mr. Shah

Aamir further argued that the 21 petitioners participated

in the selection process initiated pursuant to the

amended Rule 45 and only 04 petitioners could make it

to the final list which clearly demonstrates that there

were many more meritorious candidates than the non-

selected petitioners who due to un-amended Rule were

deprived of their right of consideration in the recruitment

process just because the selection criteria was based on

academic record and interview. He has placed reliance

upon the following judgments:

(I) Jatinder Kumar and others vs. State of Punjab and

others, AIR 1984 SC 1850;

(II) Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC

1612;

(III) Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of

Haryana and others, (1985) 4 SCC 417;

12) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 16 of 22

13) The petitioners are mainly aggrieved of the

withdrawal of the posts of Assistant Professor/PTI

advertised vide notifications dated 03.09.2021 and

18.08.2021 respectively. The main contention raised by

the petitioners is that as per different notices issued by

the respondents No.2 and 3, they were shortlisted for

interview and by withdrawing the posts and re-

advertising them subsequently, grave injustice has been

caused to the petitioners. In order to appreciate this

contention of the petitioners, this Court would deem it

proper to extract the subject of all the notices in respect

of short-listing/rejection of the candidates, which is as

under:

"Subject: Shortlisting/rejection of candidature

for the post of Assistant Professor,…………..in

Higher Education Department, notified vide

Notification No……….dated……..."

14) This Court also deems it proper to extract the last

para of the notices, which is common to all the notices

regarding short-listing/rejection of the candidature as

mentioned above, as under:

“Any candidate, if aggrieved with the rejection of (his

or her) candidature, he/she may represent before

the Commission with documentary evidence within

10 days from the date of publication of this Notice.

No representation/grievance whatsoever shall be

entertained after the stipulated period.”

15) The contention raised by the petitioner that

notices(s) published by the respondent No.2 was(were)

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 17 of 22

the shortlist(s) and thereafter, only interviews were to be

conducted, as such the withdrawal of the posts is an

arbitrary act, is misconceived, as mere perusal of the last

para of all the aforesaid notices demonstrate that the

period of ten days from the date of publication of the

respective notices was provided to the candidates whose

candidature was rejected to make a representation

against rejection of their candidature. This Court says so

because had any candidate filed a representation and

been successful in his/her representation, he/she would

have ousted the candidate falling in the provisional

shortlist but, of course, subject to merit. In this view of

the matter, it cannot be held that by withdrawal of the

posts, any of the rights of the petitioners has been

violated because the selection process was still at the

stage of infancy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC

1612, has held as under:

“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of

vacancies are notified for appointment and

adequate number of candidates are found fit, the

successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right

to be appointed which cannot be legitimately

denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts

to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for

recruitment and on their selection they do not

acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant

recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under

no legal duty to fill up all or any of the

vacancies. However, it does not mean that the

State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 18 of 22

manner. The decision not to fill up the

vacancies has to be taken bona fide for

appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any

of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect

the comparative merit of the candidates, as

reflected at the recruitment test, and no

discrimination can be permitted. This correct

position has been consistently followed by this

Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the

decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander

Marwaha and Others, [1974] 1 SCR 165; Miss

Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Others,

[1986] 4 SCC 268 and Jitendra Kumar and Others

v. State of Punjab and Others, [1985] 1 SCR 899”

(emphasis added)

16) It would also be apt to take note of the observations

made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of

Orissa v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia , (2003) 10 SCC

144, which are extracted as under:

8. As was observed by this Court in Govt. of

Orissa v. Haraprasad Das [(1998) 1 SCC 487 :

1998 SCC (L&S) 382] whether to fill up or not to fill

up a post, is a policy decision and unless it is

arbitrary, the High Court or the Tribunal has no

jurisdiction to interfere with such decision of the

Government and direct it to make further

appointments. In the present case, no selection

was made and not even any select list was in

existence. Even if there had been any such

selection or inclusion of any of the names in the

select list, the same could not have given any

right. Therefore, mere sending of names by the

employment exchange could not have, and in

fact, has not conferred any right. The writ

applications were thoroughly misconceived, and the

Court misdirected itself as to the nature of relief to

be granted.

(emphasis added)

17) Further, in the judgment relied upon by the

petitioners in case titled East Coast Railway & anr. vs.

Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors, (2010) 7 SCC 678, it has

been held that though a candidate who has passed an

examination or whose name appears in the select list

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 19 of 22

does not have an indefeasible right to appointment yet

appointment cannot be denied arbitrarily nor can select

test be cancelled without giving proper justification.

18) Likewise, in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others

vs. South East Central Railway and others, (2019) 12

SCC 798, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held

that it is not mandatory upon the employer to fill all the

posts but discretion not to appoint must be exercised

judiciously and not arbitrarily and at the same time, the

Courts normally would not interfere with the discretion

not to fill up posts except where exercise of such

discretion is found to be arbitrary, capricious or

whimsical.

19) The ratio laid down in all the judgments as

mentioned above is that though a candidate whose name

figures in the select list has no indefeasible right to be

appointed but at the same time, the discretion of the

employer in not filling the posts should not be arbitrary,

whimsical or capricious, meaning thereby not proceeding

ahead with the selection process, should not be arbitrary

i.e. there must be justifiable reason for not proceeding

ahead with the completion of the selection process. As

already mentioned above, the process of selection

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 20 of 22

initiated by the respondents No.2 and 3 was still in its

infancy and the cause projected by the respondents for

withdrawing the posts was amendment of the Rule 45 of

the Rules of 2021 to ensure wider participation of the

candidates for getting best talent in the respective fields,

cannot be termed as arbitrary or capricious. After full-

fledged deliberation in a meeting chaired by the Chief

Secretary of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

wherein other officers also participated, it was decided

that Rule 45 is required to be amended and a request for

withdrawal of the posts advertised earlier was also made.

The respondents have given an example of selection for

the posts of Assistant Professor in Commerce to

demonstrate as to how because of difference of few

points, the candidates having higher merit in the PG

course were not figuring in the provisional shortlist. In

view of above, we do not find that the decision of the

respondents in withdrawing the posts and to re-advertise

the same by way of subsequent notifications is either

arbitrary or unjustified.

20) The principle as contended by the petitioners that

the rules of game cannot be changed midway is not

applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 21 of 22

case, more particularly when the game itself was not

played and only preparations were being made. The

respondents No.2 & 3 were yet to issue final shortlist for

interview and before doing so, the notifications were

withdrawn. On this ground as well, the petitioners have

not case at all.

21) It was also urged by learned counsel for the

petitioners that while the respondent No.2 withdrew the

posts for which the petitioners had applied, the

respondent no.2 continued with the selection process for

the purpose of making appointments in Health and

Medical Education Department on the basis of un-

amended Rule 45. The respondents No.2 and 3 have met

the aforesaid contention of the petitioners by submitting

that the selection process for those posts had reached

advanced stage and, as such, the same were filled up.

The said selection pertains to Health and Medical

Education Department whereas the posts in the present

petition pertain to Higher Education Department. Rather

the notification dated 17.02.2023 reveals that the same

was shortlist for conducting the interviews of the

candidates on the date and time mentioned therein,

whereas in the case of the petitioners it was the

WP(C) No.1981/2023 Page 22 of 22

provisional select list and already observed by this court

the petitioner(s) could have been ousted due to the

successful consideration of representation of the

meritorious rejected candidate. The petitioners, as such,

cannot get any benefit out of the selections made in the

Health and Medical Education Department on the basis

of the un-amended Rule.

22) The last contention of the petitioners that Higher

Education Department could not have taken a call for

amendment of the Rule 45 of the Rules of 2021 is also

misconceived as they have not thrown any challenge to

the amended Rule 45.

23) We have examined the order passed by the learned

Tribunal and we do not find any illegality or infirmity in

the same which may warrant interference by this Court.

The present writ petition is found to be misconceived and

the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI ) (RAJNESH OSWLA)

JUDGE JUDGE

Srinagar

03.04.2024

“Bhat Altaf-Secy”

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

Mohammad Altaf Bhat

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

03.04.2024 12:16