Supreme Court Rules on Disputed Police Recruitment in Jammu & Kashmir

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in Pankjeshwar Sharma & Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, addressed the prolonged legal battle concerning the selection process for the post of Sub-Inspectors in the Jammu & Kashmir Police. The case involved allegations of unfair recruitment practices and procedural lapses by the authorities, leading to multiple rounds of litigation spanning over two decades.

Background of the Case

• In 1999, the Director General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir, issued an advertisement for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in the Executive Branch.
• The selection process included written and viva-voce tests.
• The merit list was prepared province-wise for Jammu and Kashmir regions.
• Disqualified candidates challenged the selection process, arguing that the merit list should have been prepared at the state level rather than separately for each province.
• The Jammu & Kashmir High Court initially ruled in favor of the petitioners and directed the authorities to prepare a fresh merit list.
• Further rounds of litigation ensued over the redrawn merit list and appointments.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners, who were left out of the final merit list, argued:

• The recruitment process was flawed as the selection was done on a province-wise basis rather than treating Jammu & Kashmir as a single unit.
• The redrawn merit list did not follow the High Court’s directions properly.
• Several lower-ranked candidates were appointed, while meritorious candidates were left out.
• The selection process lacked transparency and fairness.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Jammu & Kashmir defended the recruitment process, stating:

• The province-wise merit list was prepared to ensure fair representation.
• The redrawn merit list was in compliance with the High Court’s orders.
• All appointments were made based on merit and in accordance with recruitment rules.
• The petitioners did not challenge the process in a timely manner, leading to unnecessary litigation.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi, made several key observations:

1. Legality of Province-Wise Merit List

The Court ruled that there was no justification for preparing separate merit lists for Jammu and Kashmir provinces.

“When recruitment is for a state-level post, selection should be based on a single merit list rather than a province-wise list.”

2. Unfair Advantage to Lower-Ranked Candidates

The Court observed that preparing separate merit lists resulted in the selection of lower-ranked candidates over more meritorious ones.

“A candidate securing lower marks should not be appointed merely due to an artificial division of merit lists.”

3. Delay in Challenging the Process

The Court noted that many petitioners approached the courts only after the selection process was completed.

“Litigation should not be used as a tool to reopen recruitment processes years after appointments have been made.”

4. Doctrine of Negative Equality

The Court rejected the argument that because some appointments were made unfairly, others should also be granted appointments.

“Illegality in previous appointments does not create a right for others to be appointed unlawfully.”

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court upheld the appointment of candidates based on the redrawn merit list.
• The petitioners’ claims for appointment were rejected.
• The province-wise selection method was deemed improper, but the Court refrained from disturbing the appointments made.
• The appeal was dismissed to prevent further uncertainty in recruitment.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications:

• Ensures that future police recruitment processes follow a uniform state-level merit system.
• Prevents prolonged litigation from disrupting appointments.
• Emphasizes the importance of timely legal challenges in recruitment disputes.
• Reaffirms the principle that negative equality cannot be claimed in government job selections.

The Supreme Court’s judgment provides much-needed clarity on recruitment policies and upholds merit-based selection in public employment.

Petitioner Name: Pankjeshwar Sharma & Others.
Respondent Name: State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Jammu & Kashmir.
Judgment Date: 03-12-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Pankjeshwar Sharma & vs State of Jammu & Kas Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-12-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category