Jammu-Srinagar NH-44 caves in near Dewal bridge amid heavy rain

24/07/2026

SRINAGAR, Jul 23: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the exclusion of candidates from the final selection list for the posts of Works Supervisor, holding that mere inclusion in a provisional selection list does not confer a right to appointment when the prescribed qualification is not fulfilled.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member M.S. Latif and Administrative Member Prasant Kumar also ordered the release of posts that had remained reserved pursuant to an earlier order of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and permitted the authorities to proceed with the recruitment process in accordance with law. The judgment was reserved on March 24 and pronounced on July 23.
The Tribunal was deciding five connected Original Applications - OA Nos. 895/2023, 10/2024, 180/2024, 985/2024 and 584/2025 - involving an identical controversy concerning selection to the posts of Works Supervisor advertised by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB).
The applicants had figured in the provisional selection list but were subsequently excluded from the final selection lists issued in 2023 and 2024. They sought quashing of the final selection to the extent it affected them.
Under Advertisement Notification No. 05 of 2020 dated December 24, 2020, the prescribed qualification for Works Supervisor in the Public Works Department was matriculation or its equivalent from a recognised Board or University along with an ITI Certificate in Building Construction or Carpentry Trade.
The dispute centred around trade certificates obtained by the applicants from Royal Polytechnic College, Srinagar.
JKSSB told the Tribunal that after grievances were received regarding such certificates, it sought verification from the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Technical Education (BOTE). The Board, in a communication dated August 1, 2023, stated that Royal Polytechnic College was not registered by the Skill Development Department or J&K BOTE to conduct examinations for ITI courses and that the candidates concerned had not appeared in examinations conducted by BOTE.
The Tribunal also considered affidavits filed by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). AICTE stated that although Extension of Approval had been granted to Royal Polytechnic College Trust for specified diploma courses, it had not approved ITI certificates in Building Construction or Carpentry Trade.
AICTE further stated that approval of ITI certificate courses did not fall within its purview and that the short-term course certificates relied upon by the applicants were not recognised by it.
The applicants, however, contended that certificates issued by Royal Polytechnic College had earlier been recognised in judicial proceedings and that candidates possessing similar certificates had been appointed or promoted in government departments.
Their counsel also relied upon previous judgments, including Mohd Maqbool Wani and others versus State of J&K and others, and argued that reopening the issue amounted to discriminatory treatment.
Rejecting the challenge, the Tribunal held that the applicants were required to satisfy the eligibility conditions specifically prescribed in the recruitment advertisement.
"It is well settled that a selectee cannot claim appointment as a matter of right," the Tribunal observed, adding that inclusion of a candidate's name in a provisional list did not create an enforceable right to selection.
The Bench held that the applicants had been given an opportunity to produce the requisite certificates but had failed to do so and, therefore, lacked the prescribed qualification for the posts.
"We are of the considered opinion that the applicants do not have any right to claim their appointment due to the lack of requisite qualifications," the Tribunal said while dismissing the petitions without any order as to costs.
The Tribunal also relied upon the High Court judgment in Sunayana versus JKSSB and others while reiterating that mere inclusion in a selection list does not confer a right to appointment.
Consequently, the posts kept reserved pursuant to the High Court's order dated March 18, 2024, were ordered to be released. All interim directions were also vacated and the respondents were permitted to proceed in accordance with law.
Significantly, before parting with the case, the Tribunal asked the J&K administration to undertake an exercise to identify institutions that are not recognised by the Skill Development Department, BOTE, AICTE or other competent bodies but are nevertheless imparting training in unrecognised courses.
The Bench observed that students trained in such institutions could subsequently find themselves ineligible for government employment.
It further asked the government to provide JKSSB with a list of recognised institutions so as to "avert unnecessary litigation in future and to save public time."
Advocate Bhat Fayaz represented the applicants in OA No. 895/2023, while Advocate Noor Mohd. Mir appeared for the applicants in connected matters and Advocate Gulzar Ahmad Bhat represented the applicant in other connected applications. Deputy Advocates General Rais Ud Din Ganaie and Syed Musaib represented the official respondents. Advocate Mir Suhail appeared for certain private respondents, while Advocate Bilal Ahmad Malla represented AICTE.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty