Partly allowed

Harshwardhan Sharma v. Home Department

CAT11 Sept 2026O.A./293/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged his exclusion from the Constable select list as EWS candidate, arguing his marks exceeded the EWS cut-off. The Tribunal allowed the application partly, directing authorities to consider his candidature for an available vacant post in the District Poonch without disturbing existing appointments.

What did the court decide?

Directed to consider the applicant for appointment against an available vacant post in the recruitment process, subject to rule-based eligibility.

Harshwardhan Sharma vs Home Department — Pension and Retirement Benefits | CAT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No. 293/2023

¶2

:: 1 ::

¶3

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

¶4

JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)

¶5

Hearing through video conferencing

¶6

Original Application No. 293/2023

¶7

Reserved on: - 10.02.2026

¶8

Pronounced on: - 11.09.2026

¶9

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J) HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)

¶10

Harshwardhan Sharma Age 22 year,

¶11

S/o Sh. Vishwa Mittar,

¶12

R/o H.No. 43, Mohalla Panditan, Krishan Hall,

¶13

Ward No.11, Tehsil Haveli District Poonch 185101

¶14

...Applicant

¶15

(By Advocate: -Mr. Rahul Sharma, Ms. Rupali Sharma)

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through its Principal Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar-180001. E-mail id:- [email protected]

¶18

The Director General of Police, J&K, Police Headquarters, Gulshan Ground,

¶19

HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

¶20

O.A. No. 293/2023

¶21

:: 2 ::

¶22

Gandhi Nagar, Jammu-180001. E-mail id:- [email protected]

¶23

The Chairman, Police Recruitment Board for 02 Border Battalions, PHQ, J&K, Srinagar/Jammu-180001. (The Additional Director General of Police) Email id:- dpojammu@jk police.gov.in

¶24

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hqrs, Poonch. 188101 Email id:- [email protected].

¶25

Mr. Vishal Sharma S/o Sh. Narinder Kumar, R/o Ward No. 3, Dara Dullian Haveli District Poonch-185101.

¶26

Mr. Sadam Hussain Shah S/o Sh. Zaker Hussain Shah, R/o Dhera Kund Jugal Mendhar, Bhera, District Poonch-185111.

¶27

Mr. Ridham Sudam S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, R/o H. No. 268, Ward No. 3, Mohalla Dungus, Tehsil Haveli District Poonch-185101.

¶28

Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmed S/o Sh. Shukar Din, R/o Thera, P.O. Judhal, Tehsil Mendhar District Poonch-185111.

¶29

…Respondents.

¶30

(By Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thappa, ld. AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG, Mr. Iqbal Hussain Bhat)

¶31

HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

O.A. No. 293/2023

:: 3 ::

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

¶36

The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

¶37

a) Set aside the impugned Final Select List issued by the respondents qua District Poonch Category EWS for the post of Constable in 02 Border Battalion, J&K Police advertised vide PHQ J&K advertisement Notification No.Pers-Rectt-A-1052018/16207-50 dated 09.03.2019 and No.Pers- Rectt-A-1052018/ 2500-50 dated 11.01.2022, whereby despite having fully eligible for the said post under EWS Category, the name of the applicant has been left out in the impugned select list and the private respondents No.5 to 8 who are having less marks than the applicant have been shown to be selected at S.No.10 to 13 respectively in the impugned select list.

¶38

HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

¶39

O.A. No. 293/2023

¶40

:: 4 ::

¶41

b) Directing the respondents to select and appoint the applicant for the post of Constable for District Poonch under EWS Category in 02 Border Battalion, J&K Police advertised vide PHQ J&K advertisement Notification No.Pers-Rectt-A-1052018/16207-50 dated 09.03.2019 in accordance with law and recruitment rules and norms.

¶42

c) Restraining the respondents from appointment orders in favour of private respondents issuing pursuant to select list qua District Poonch Category EWS for the post of Constable in 02 Border Battalion, J&K Police advertised vide PHQ J&K advertisement Notification No.Pers-Rectt-A-105-2018/1620750 dated 09.03.2019 and No.Pers- Rectt-A-105-2018/ 2500-50 dated 11.01.2022.

¶43

d) The Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly grant such other relief(s) as may be considered appropriate in the circumstances of the present case.

¶44

HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

¶45

O.A. No. 293/2023

¶46

:: 5 ::

¶47

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, essentially calling in question his non-selection to the post of Constable in 02 Border Battalions of J&K Police in District Poonch under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. The applicant has also sought a direction to the respondents to select and appoint him against the said post. The recruitment emanated from Advertisement Notification dated 09.03.2019, followed by the subsequent notification dated 11.01.2022.

¶48

The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he participated in the selection process for the post of Constable and possessed certificates pertaining to EWS as well as Pahari Speaking People (PSP) categories. According to him, when the candidates were afforded an opportunity to indicate the reserved category under which they desired consideration, he specifically opted for consideration under the EWS category. The record relied upon by him includes the communication dated 15.10.2022, wherein it was recorded that the applicant had

¶49

HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

¶50

O.A. No. 293/2023

¶51

:: 6 ::

¶52

produced an EWS certificate along with an application requesting that he be considered under the said category.

¶53

The grievance of the applicant is that notwithstanding the aforesaid request, his candidature was ultimately considered under the PSP category. In the revised merit list, he was placed at Serial No. 592 with 56 marks . According to the applicant, candidates securing 55, 52, 50 and 48 marks were selected under the EWS category in District Poonch, whereas he, despite having secured higher marks, was denied consideration under that category.

¶54

The respondents have resisted the Original Application. Their principal contention is that though the applicant had produced both PSP and EWS category certificates, his candidature could be considered only against one reserved category. Upon scrutiny, the EWS certificate produced by the applicant was treated as invalid for the recruitment process on the ground that it had been issued after the prescribed cut-off date of 02.04.2022 . Consequently, in what the respondents describe as the larger interest of the applicant, his

¶55

HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

¶56

O.A. No. 293/2023

¶57

:: 7 ::

¶58

candidature was considered under the PSP category, his PSP certificate being valid within the stipulated period.

¶59

The respondents have further stated that the applicant secured 56 marks, whereas the cut-off under PSP category for District Poonch was 81 marks . On the other hand, the cut-off under EWS category for District Poonch was 48 marks . It is thus apparent that the applicant's marks were higher than the EWS cut-off, though he could not find place in the PSP category because of the substantially higher cut-off applicable thereto.

¶60

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings and material placed on record.

¶61

The controversy lies in a narrow compass. The applicant is not challenging his marks in the written examination. It is also not disputed that he secured 56 marks . The real controversy is whether, in the peculiar facts of the case, his candidature deserved consideration under the EWS category instead of the PSP category and, consequentially, whether any relief can now be granted to him

¶62

HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

¶63

O.A. No. 293/2023

¶64

:: 8 ::

¶65

without unsettling appointments already made pursuant to the recruitment process.

¶66

The material on record shows that the recruitment process had undergone certain changes after issuance of the original advertisement. The respondents themselves issued a press release permitting candidates who had earlier qualified PET/PST and possessed reserved-category certificates pursuant to S.O. 127 of 2020 to change their categories and produce the desired reserved-category certificates before the Police Recruitment Board. The applicant produced both PSP and EWS certificates pursuant thereto.

¶67

More importantly, the record also demonstrates that the applicant had made his intention clear that he desired consideration under the EWS category . The communication dated 15.10.2022 itself records that the applicant had submitted an application requesting consideration under EWS. Thus, this is not a case where the applicant remained silent throughout the selection process and sought change of category only after finding himself unsuccessful. His request for EWS consideration existed during the selection process itself.

¶68

HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

¶69

O.A. No. 293/2023

¶70

:: 9 ::

¶71

At the same time, the stand of the respondents regarding the cut-off date of the EWS certificate cannot altogether be ignored. The Police Recruitment Board considered the applicant's representation and decided to treat him under PSP category on the premise that his EWS certificate had been issued after 02.04.2022. The respondents have also stated that representations received after declaration of the result were examined by the Police Recruitment Board in its meeting dated 08.02.2023 and appropriate decisions were taken thereon.

¶72

In our considered view, therefore, it may not be appropriate at this stage to quash the entire select list or disturb candidates who have already been appointed and may have been serving for a considerable period. Such a course would cause serious prejudice to third parties and disturb a selection process which has otherwise attained finality.

¶73

Nevertheless, the applicant's claim cannot be rejected mechanically. A significant circumstance which weighs with this Tribunal is that the applicant secured 56 marks , whereas the respondents themselves state that the last cut-off under EWS category in District Poonch was 48 marks . His request to be treated under EWS category was also made

¶74

HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

¶75

O.A. No. 293/2023

¶76

:: 10 ::

¶77

during the recruitment process. Therefore, subject to his satisfying the eligibility requirements applicable to the EWS category in accordance

¶78

with the relevant rules and the terms governing the recruitment, his case deserves a fair consideration if a vacancy is available and can lawfully be utilized.

¶79

Courts and Tribunals exercising judicial review in service matters are required to strike a balance between protecting a candidate from arbitrary exclusion and avoiding unnecessary disturbance of appointments already made. In the facts of the present case, that balance can appropriately be achieved by directing consideration of the applicant against an available vacant post, rather than by unsettling the selection of candidates who are already appointed.

¶80

Accordingly, the Original Application is partly allowed . The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for appointment to the post of Constable in 02 Border Battalions, J&K Police against an available vacant post pertaining to District Poonch , subject to his fulfilling all other eligibility

¶81

HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

¶82

O.A. No. 293/2023

¶83

:: 11 ::

¶84

conditions and subject to such vacancy being legally available for being filled from the recruitment process in question.

¶85

While undertaking such consideration, the respondents shall keep in view the fact that the applicant had secured 56 marks and had requested consideration under the EWS category during the course of the selection process. His case shall not be rejected merely on the ground that he was earlier reflected under the PSP category, without examining his request and the relevant record in its proper perspective.

¶86

We make it clear that this direction shall not result in displacement or cancellation of the appointment of any candidate already selected/appointed . If no vacancy from the recruitment process is presently available, but any vacancy is available on account of nonjoining, resignation, cancellation of candidature/appointment or otherwise and is legally capable of being utilized for the recruitment in question, the applicant's case shall be considered against such vacancy in accordance with his merit and the applicable rules.

¶87

HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

¶88

O.A. No. 293/2023

¶89

:: 12 ::

¶90

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the applicant is found entitled and is appointed pursuant to the aforesaid consideration, his appointment shall take effect prospectively from the date of actual appointment and he shall not be entitled to back wages for the period during which he has not actually worked. His other service benefits shall be regulated in accordance with the applicable rules.

¶91

The Original Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶92

No order as to costs.

¶93

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member Judicial Member

¶94

/harshit /

¶95

HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

Harshwardhan Sharma v. Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshwardhan Sharma v. Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prajakta Prashant Wade vs Central Railway

Dilip Deorao Ukey vs Central Railway

Atul Sirjerao Thakare vs Central Ground Water Board

Prashik Anil Ramteke vs Income Tax Department

Shishir Kumar Sirvastava vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar vs Union of India

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs Union of India

Atul Mishra vs Secretary