The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently dismissed a review petition filed by the J&K Public Service Commission (JKPSC), emphasizing that a constitutional body cannot defend a selection process that was already set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The court noted that the candidate whose appointment was nullified did not challenge the decision, implying an indirect admission of the ruling’s validity.

Read also: Delay in Receiving Arbitral Award Due to Fee Default Cannot Affect Limitation Period: J&K High Court

• The JKPSC attempted to challenge a CAT ruling that had set aside the appointment of Respondent No. 4.
• The affected candidate, Respondent No. 4, did not appeal the decision, raising questions about the Commission's standing to defend the selection process.
• The court found that the JKPSC's review petition failed to present any new, substantial grounds for reconsideration.

Case Background: What Led to the Controversy?

The case revolved around the selection of a Lecturer in Medical Oncology at GMC Jammu. Respondent No. 4 was initially chosen for the position, but his selection was contested by Respondent No. 1 before CAT on the grounds of bias and favoritism.

Read also: J&K High Court: Land Acquisition Invalid Without Notice in Regional Language

• Respondent No. 1 argued that Respondent No. 4 received undue advantage due to his relationship with one of the interview panel members.
• The CAT Jammu Bench found merit in the claim and canceled the appointment of Respondent No. 4.
• The tribunal further directed the authorities to reconsider the selection of Respondent No. 1.

Despite the ruling, Respondent No. 4 and the J&K Government did not challenge CAT’s decision. However, JKPSC went ahead and filed a writ petition seeking to overturn the judgment.

• The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that JKPSC had no locus standi to question the CAT ruling.
• Since the primary affected party, Respondent No. 4, did not contest the decision, the court saw no justification for PSC’s intervention.

Following this, JKPSC filed a review petition, essentially repeating its previous arguments while adding a few more claims.

Read also: J&K High Court: No Absolute Right to Skip Pre-Litigation Mediation Without Justified Urgency

A division bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Rahul Bharti examined the case and made the following observations:

1. PSC Had No Legal Standing to Defend the Selection
   • The court reiterated that the commission’s role ended once CAT set aside the selection.
   • Since the candidate (Respondent No. 4) did not challenge the ruling, PSC’s attempt to defend the selection was unwarranted.
2. No New Grounds Were Raised in the Review Petition
   • The court noted that the review petition merely reiterated the earlier grounds for challenging CAT’s ruling.
   • No fresh, substantial evidence was provided to justify reconsideration.
3. Approval Process for Legal Challenge Was Unclear
   • PSC argued that it had the competent authority’s approval to file the petition.
   • However, the court pointed out that the review petition did not cite any specific minutes of the meeting where such approval was granted.

"Even going by the grounds of the review petition, which emphasize being authorized by the competent authority to challenge the impugned judgment, there is no mention therein as to vide which minutes of the meeting the so-referred approval of the competent authority for filing the writ petition was taken."

4. Assistant Law Officer’s Communication Not Considered as Authorization
   • The court further held that a letter from the Assistant Law Officer to JKPSC’s standing counsel could not be considered a valid authorization to challenge CAT’s ruling.

After considering all arguments, the High Court dismissed the review petition, reaffirming its previous stance that JKPSC had no legal authority to defend a selection process already struck down by CAT.

"The review petition did not present any valid new points but was simply an attempt to reopen the case, and the same came to be dismissed."

APPEARANCE:

F. A. Natnoo, Advocate For Petitioners

Case-Title: Dr. Rajeev Gupta vs U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors, 2025