*Orders compensation to ousted merit candidates
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 4: In a stinging indictment of the Jammu & Kashmir administration, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has held that the Union Territory has indulged in “selective implementation of court directions” while dealing with appointments to the posts of Dental Assistant/Junior Dental Technician, and dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Government with costs.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal upheld the 2017 verdict of the Single Judge which had directed that candidates holding a Diploma in Dental Hygienist Training Course be treated as eligible for the posts and considered strictly as per merit in the selection process initiated under Advertisement Notice No. 10 of 2013.
The appeals were filed by the UT of J&K through Secretary, Health and Medical Education Department and others. The appellants were represented by Raman Sharma, Additional Advocate General, while the private respondents (original writ petitioners) were represented by Abhinav Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Advocates Mazher Ali Khan, Liaqat Ali and Mudassir Maqbool.
The litigation arose from selections conducted by the J&K Services Selection Board (JKSSB) for posts of Dental Assistant/Junior Dental Technician. Candidates possessing a Diploma in Dental Hygienist were permitted to participate in the selection process but were later denied appointment on the plea that they did not possess the “requisite qualification” as per the advertisement. Their writ petitions were allowed by a Single Judge on 31 August 2017, prompting the present Letters Patent Appeals.
The Division Bench recorded that the Health and Medical Education Department itself, vide communication dated 19th November 2015, had categorically informed the JKSSB that a Diploma in Dental Hygienist was an eligible qualification for the posts in question. On the strength of this very stand, an earlier writ petition (SWP No. 2112/2015) was allowed on 19th September 2016, and that judgment was fully implemented in favour of similarly placed candidates.
Despite this, the UT administration chose to accept and implement the 2016 judgment, yet challenged the 2017 judgment-based on the same principle-after an unexplained delay of about six years, by which time the JKSSB had already issued a revised selection list vide Order No. 165-SSB of 2018 dated 22nd March 2018. The Court observed that the appeals appeared designed primarily to protect lower-merit appointees who were ousted in the revised list, rather than to safeguard the rights of more meritorious candidates.
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in Shivappa etc. Versus Chief Engineer and others (2023), the Bench reiterated that the State cannot adopt different standards for similarly situated persons, nor can it selectively obey judgments on identical issues. The conduct of the appellants was described as a “classic example” of discriminatory and arbitrary action.
In unusually sharp language, the Division Bench held that the appeals were “not only devoid of merit but constitute a classic example of the abuse of the process of law”, and censured the administration for showing “regrettable disregard” to higher-merit candidates who have been kept out of service for seven to eight years, despite a clear judicial mandate and the department’s own admission concerning their eligibility.
Holding that the UT had failed to point out any distinguishing feature between the present respondents and those in the earlier case where the Government had quietly implemented the judgment, the Court concluded that the Single Judge’s order suffered from no legal infirmity and deserved to be affirmed in toto.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed all LPAs with costs of Rs 10,000 to be paid to each private respondent figuring in the revised selection list issued under Order No. 165-SSB of 2018, directing that the amount be borne by the appellant-UT.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
