Jammu Kashmir High Court Dismisses Plea by PO Aspirant, Says No Right Beyond Merit List

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has dismissed a writ petition filed by Sushant Khajuria, a 24-year-old engineering graduate from Bishnah in Jammu district, who had sought appointment as a Probationary Officer in Jammu and Kashmir Bank despite not featuring in the select or waiting list.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani ruled that the petitioner had no enforceable legal right to demand selection against leftover vacancies, having failed to make the cutoff set by the bank during its 2018 recruitment drive.

Khajuria had applied for the post in 2018. The bank had advertised 175 vacancies for Probationary Officers under the general category. Khajuria successfully appeared in the written examination and interview but was ultimately not selected. The bank appointed 138 candidates and created a waiting list of 18 names. Of these, 37 selected candidates did not join, and only 16 candidates from the waiting list took up the posts.

Claiming that he had a higher merit than some of the appointees and should have been considered against the unfilled vacancies, Khajuria approached the court, arguing that he had been unfairly left out despite submitting a representation to the bank. However, the court found that Khajuria had secured 61.22 marks below the 61.27 marks obtained by the last candidate in the waiting list.

Justice Wani observed that Khajuria did not feature in either the select or the waiting list and that the waiting list had expired on March 31, 2021, as per the conditions clearly mentioned in the original recruitment notification. “The petitioner cannot, in law, seek his selection and appointment against the leftover vacancies of the post in question on account of his having voluntarily and without any objection or reservation participated in the process of selection, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement notice,” the judge stated.

The court relied on legal precedent to support its findings. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Shankarsan Dash vs Union of India (1991), the court reiterated that candidates do not acquire a legal right to be appointed merely because they have participated in a selection process and vacancies remain. “It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed,” the judgment cited.

Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma, representing the bank, argued that Khajuria’s claim lacked merit as the recruitment rules did not permit appointment of anyone beyond the final lists. The advertisement itself stipulated that no appointments could be made beyond the notified select and waiting lists.

The court also cited another Supreme Court judgment, State of Orissa vs Bhikari Charan Khuntia (2003), stating that whether to fill up a post is a policy decision and not within the court’s jurisdiction unless the decision is proven to be arbitrary or malicious.

Justice Wani concluded that the writ petition, filed in March 2022—long after the expiry of the waiting list—was “grossly misconceived” and dismissed it along with all connected applications.