In a significant ruling affecting recruitment in the subordinate judiciary, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that candidates cannot be barred from government jobs solely on the basis of their district of residence. The court allowed a writ petition filed by Balwinder Kumar, an SC category candidate, who was stopped from appearing in an interview for a Class-IV post in Baramulla because he belonged to another district.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose from Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2019, issued by the High Court’s Chief Justice’s Secretariat, inviting applications for Class-IV posts in district and divisional cadres of the J&K judiciary. Among the notified vacancies were nine posts of Orderly for District Baramulla, including one reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates.
Read also:- Patna High Court Quashes Punishment on DMCH Staff, Says Inquiry Had ‘No Evidence’ in ICU Oxygen Deaths Case
Balwinder Kumar, a resident of District Samba, applied for the SC post. He disclosed his domicile details in the application and was shortlisted for viva voce. However, when he appeared before the interview committee at Baramulla in July 2019, he was denied participation. The reason cited was a clause in the advertisement that restricted district cadre posts only to candidates belonging to the same district.
Aggrieved by the last-minute rejection, Kumar approached the High Court, challenging the validity of the residence-based restriction and seeking a direction to allow him to participate in the selection process.
The division bench was called upon to decide two core questions:
- Whether a candidate who applied despite knowing the conditions of the advertisement was barred from challenging it later.
- Whether the district-residence clause violated Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination in public employment on grounds such as residence.
Court Observations
Rejecting the respondents’ argument of “estoppel,” the bench noted that mere participation in a selection process does not prevent a candidate from questioning an unconstitutional condition. The judges observed that the petitioner was not challenging the selection procedure itself but a clause that allegedly offended the Constitution.
“The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible,” the bench observed, emphasizing that illegal or discriminatory conditions cannot be shielded merely because a candidate applied under them.
Relying on earlier rulings, including judgments of the Supreme Court of India, the court reiterated that discrimination on the ground of residence is prohibited unless backed by a specific law enacted by Parliament.
The bench also referred to its own earlier division bench decision in Mulakh Raj v. State of J&K, which had struck down similar residence-based restrictions, holding that neither the Union Territory nor the High Court could impose such conditions in the absence of parliamentary legislation.
Read also:- Allahabad HC Sets Aside Municipal Election Verdict, Says Delay in Election Petitions Cannot Be Condoned
Final Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court declared Clause 1(i)(a) of Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 2019 unconstitutional and void. The court directed the concerned authorities to interview Balwinder Kumar and consider him for the SC category post of Orderly in District Baramulla.
The bench ordered that the exercise be completed within two months from the date the judgment is served. It clarified that if the petitioner is found meritorious, his appointment would be prospective, effective from the date of the formal appointment order. No costs were imposed.
Case Title: Balwinder Kumar v. State of J&K & Ors.
Case No.: WP (C) No. 2849/2019
Case Type: Writ Petition (Service Matter)
Decision Date: 30 December 2025
