TAJVIR SINGH SODHI & ORS. versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.

TAJVIR SINGH SODHI & ORS. versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.

The High Court erred in quashing the entire selection and appointments because (i) courts should not substitute their judgment for selection committees absent mala fide or grave arbitrariness, (ii) unsuccessful candidates who participated without protest cannot challenge recast criteria after the fact, (iii) absence of individually signed award rolls was not shown to be a statutory requirement or evidence of mala fide, and (iv) the appointment of an MD/Ph.D. pharmacologist as expert was within the Chairman’s discretion under rr.9 and 9A of the Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992; accordingly the High Court judgments were set aside and the selected candidates may...

Parties
Appellants: TAJVIR SINGH SODHI & ORS.; Respondents: THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court judgments set aside
Legal Topics
Selection Process for Public Employment, Judicial Review of Selection, Waiver and Acquiescence, Mala Fides, Recasting of Selection Criteria, Role of Expert in Selection Committee, Interview/viva Voce Assessment
Service Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Employment Law Selection Process for Public Employment Judicial Review of Selection Waiver and Acquiescence Mala Fides +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TAJVIR SINGH SODHI & ORS.

Appellants

THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in quashing the selection and appointments made on 8 September 2009 and published 12 November 2009
  2. 2 Scope of judicial review of selection processes for public employment
  3. 3 Whether recasting the selection criteria by corrigendum vitiated the selection

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in quashing the entire selection and appointments because (i) courts should not substitute their judgment for selection committees absent mala fide or grave arbitrariness, (ii) unsuccessful candidates who participated without protest cannot challenge recast criteria after the fact, (iii) absence of individually signed award rolls was not shown to be a statutory requirement or evidence of mala fide, and (iv) the appointment of an MD/Ph.D. pharmacologist as expert was within the Chairman’s discretion under rr.9 and 9A of the Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992; accordingly the High Court judgments were set aside and the selected candidates may...

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court judgments set aside

Orders

  • Judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court dated 18 December 2015 set aside
  • Impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 29 October 2021 set aside