The High Court has reaffirmed that candidates who participate in a selection process without protest cannot later challenge the process on grounds such as non-disclosure of vacancies or alleged errors in assessment. This judgment upholds established precedent, emphasizing that verbal promises and post-facto objections do not create enforceable recruitment rights. The precedent is binding on all subordinate courts in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh regarding public recruitment disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/805/2023 of IRFAN RASHID DAR AND ORS Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS (COMMANDANT GENERAL SDRF CUM DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE) |
| CNR | JKHC010014962023 |
| Date of Registration | 07-04-2023 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar |
| Bench | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Tribunal’s decision; upholds established principles in recruitment law |
| Type of Law | Service law, public recruitment |
| Questions of Law | Whether unsuccessful candidates who participated in a selection process can challenge the process based on alleged non-disclosure of posts or procedural irregularities. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The judgment reasons that acquiescence by participation bars subsequent challenge; recruitment cannot be dictated by alleged verbal promises; official procedures and candidate acknowledgment outweigh belated claims. Departmental prerogative over vacancies reaffirmed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Candidates applied for Constable positions under an advertisement that did not specify vacancy numbers; after participating in the recruitment and not being selected, some challenged the process alleging non-disclosure. The respondents documented that numbers were later notified and the process was transparent. Alleged measurement discrepancies were refuted by records and candidate acknowledgment. Petitioners’ claims based on verbal undertakings and RTI revelations about battalion strength were rejected. Earlier, the Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed the claims, which was affirmed by the present writ petition’s dismissal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals within the jurisdiction of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in similar recruitment matters |
| Overrules | None (Affirms prior precedent and the Tribunal’s decision) |
| Follows | Follows longstanding principles regarding participation and acquiescence in public recruitment processes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces the principle that candidates who undergo the entire recruitment process without timely objection cannot subsequently challenge the process on grounds such as non-disclosure of posts or alleged procedural flaws.
- Explicitly rejects the creation of enforceable recruitment rights based on alleged verbal promises or informal assurances by authorities.
- Confirms departmental prerogative regarding decision on number of vacancies to fill; sanctioned strength does not mandate filling all posts.
- Requires documentary and contemporaneous objections if candidates wish to dispute procedural aspects (such as physical measurement standards) in selection.
- The judgment can be used to contest similar post-selection challenges based on late-raised process objections.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether post-selection challenges can be entertained when candidates have actively participated in the process without protest.
- Addressed the main grievance of non-disclosure of vacancies: held that the number of posts was subsequently notified, and if the petitioners were truly aggrieved, they ought to have raised the issue at the initial stage.
- Reiterated that acquiescence bars subsequent challenges — participation without protest followed by challenge after failure constitutes an abuse of process.
- Rejected claims based on alleged verbal assurances about the number of vacancies, holding that legally enforceable rights can only be based on formal notifications.
- Dismissed measurement error allegations after official documentation and acknowledgment by candidates were produced, and no complaint was lodged at the relevant time.
- Affirmed that the employer retains discretion on how many vacancies to fill at any given time.
- Upheld the Tribunal’s prior finding and dismissed the writ.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged that the original recruitment advertisement failed to disclose the number of vacancies.
- Claimed that their height/chest measurements were inaccurately recorded, leading to loss of points.
- Argued that a verbal promise was made regarding the filling of 850 posts in each province.
- Asserted that as per information received under RTI, more posts should have been advertised and filled.
Respondent
- Asserted that the number of vacancies and category-wise positions were notified subsequently and uploaded on the official website before completion of the process.
- Claimed the selection process was transparent, with measurements digitally recorded and accepted by candidates’ signatures.
- Denied any verbal promises; stated recruitments cannot be made on the basis of oral assurances.
- Emphasized that the posts are filled based on vacancies available at the time, not total sanctioned strength.
- Noted that the petitioners failed to raise objections during the process and only challenged after being unsuccessful.
Factual Background
The petitioners responded to a 2012 advertisement for Constable posts in the Jammu and Kashmir State Disaster Response Force. The ad did not specify the number of vacancies. After various tests and procedural steps, a select list was published in 2019. Unsuccessful candidates, including the petitioners, challenged the selection process, alleging non-disclosure of vacancies, measurement discrepancies, and reliance on alleged verbal promises of higher intake. The matter was first dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the present writ petition sought to overturn the Tribunal’s ruling.
Statutory Analysis
- Considered Section 5 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, regarding unfilled reserved category posts in the absence of suitable candidates.
- Emphasized that recruitment must follow officially notified rules and departmental orders, not oral representations.
- No constitutional provisions or expansive/narrow interpretations beyond administrative law and recruitment statutes are referenced.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
The judgment was unanimous. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE concurred with the reasoning and outcome of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL. No separate dissenting or additional opinions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies existing law regarding acquiescence, post-selection challenge, and prerogative of employer in public recruitment.