The Jammu Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has dismissed a plea filed by an aspirant for the post of Driver in the Health Department, District Cadre Doda, under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. The Tribunal held that his failure to submit the required experience certificate within the prescribed time rendered him ineligible and disqualified him from the selection process.
The case arose from Advertisement Notification No. 04 of 2006 issued by the J&K Services Selection Board (JKSSB), which reserved two posts for ST candidates. The eligibility criteria required candidates to possess a hill driving license and 2–3 years of experience from a recognized establishment.
Although the petitioner claimed he had submitted valid experience certificates with his original application, the Tribunal noted that he failed to resubmit them when specifically called upon by JKSSB via a notice dated 12.06.2012, which gave all shortlisted candidates 10 days to submit such proof. The final selection list, issued in October 2013, showed the ST posts as unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates.
The petitioner argued the rejection was arbitrary and discriminatory, and claimed mala fide on the part of the authorities. However, the Tribunal comprising Justice Rajinder Singh Dogra (Judicial Member) and Ram Mohan Johri (Administrative Member) rejected this claim, finding no evidence of bias or procedural irregularity. The Court held that eligibility must be strictly assessed based on notified criteria, and a candidate who fails to comply cannot assert a right to appointment.
The Tribunal also invoked the principle of approbate and reprobate, stating that a candidate who has participated in the selection process without meeting the eligibility criteria cannot later challenge the outcome. Citing precedents including Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2003) 11 SCC 584 and Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, the Tribunal concluded the petition lacked merit and dismissed it with no order as to costs.
Appearances in the case:
Petitioner: Ms. Aruna Thakur
Respondents: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, AAG, Mr. Dewakar Sharma, DAG
