“Re-Agitation Under Guise of Review Not Permissible”: J&K High Court Dismisses PSC’s Plea, Says “No Locus to Challenge Candidate’s Selection Being Set Aside”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Division Bench comprising Justice Rahul Bharti and Justice Sindhu Sharma, dismissed a review petition filed by the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (J&K PSC). The Court held that the petitioner lacked the legal basis to seek review of the judgment dated 05.05.2022, which had earlier dismissed its writ petition against a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Observing that the petitioner was attempting to revisit issues already adjudicated, the Court recorded, “under the guise of writ petition, the petitioner-J&K PSC in fact is seeking to re-agitate the matter forming subject matter of the writ petition.” The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review petition accordingly.
The J&K Public Service Commission filed WP(C) No. 802/2022 to seek quashment of the judgment dated 03.02.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, in T.A. No. 61/6606/2020. In that judgment, the Tribunal had set aside the selection of Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir to the post of Lecturer Super Specialty (Medical Oncology), Government Medical College & Hospital, Jammu, and directed the authorities to consider the candidature of Dr. Rajeev Gupta for the said post.
The selection and prospective appointment of Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir stood nullified by the Tribunal’s judgment. However, Dr. Mir did not challenge the judgment by filing a writ petition or seeking any other legal remedy. Similarly, the Government of Jammu & Kashmir, which was a respondent in the Tribunal proceedings, did not contest the decision.
The J&K PSC alone approached the High Court with the writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s order. The High Court dismissed the petition at the outset, citing absence of locus standi. The Court held that the Commission had no standing to assail the judgment in the context presented in the writ petition.
Subsequently, the Commission filed Review Petition No. 87/2022 on 07.06.2022, seeking reconsideration of the High Court’s judgment dated 05.05.2022. In the review petition, the Commission submitted that the original judgment contained errors apparent on the face of the record and urged the Court to examine the grounds afresh.
The grounds for review included an assertion that the Commission, being a constitutional body under Article 315 of the Constitution of India, was legally competent to defend the selection process. The Commission referred to its status and role in selections and contended that it had made averments regarding locus standi in Paragraph 1 of the writ petition.
The petitioner also referred to a communication dated 15.02.2022 (No. PSC/LIT/153/2018/P-1) from its Assistant Law Officer to its standing counsel to demonstrate that the decision to file the writ petition had been approved by the competent authority. It further submitted that the writ petition had been filed in response to the setting aside of a selection made by the Commission, and that such developments warranted the right to challenge.
In addition to procedural assertions, the Commission claimed that the Tribunal had committed an error by directing selection instead of ordering a re-interview if bias was assumed. The petitioner maintained that the High Court had misread or overlooked certain facts regarding the selection process and the expert panel.
The High Court, upon hearing the matter, declined to entertain the review petition. Justice Rahul Bharti, writing the judgment, recorded that the grounds raised by the petitioner in the review petition effectively sought to revisit the already decided writ petition. The Court noted, “the petitioner-J&K PSC is, in fact, missing wood for the trees.”
The Court reiterated its earlier observation that the person whose selection was set aside—Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir—had not chosen to challenge the CAT’s order, implying no legal grievance on his part. The Court observed, “Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir…never felt bothered to question said judgment adverse against him meaning thereby a latent admission on his part.” It further recorded that the Tribunal had found that Dr. Mir’s selection was “an outcome of bias operating in his favour because of presence of Dr. Atul Sharma in the interview committee born out from the fact that Dr. Mohd. Hussain Mir happened to be the student of Dr. Atul Sharma.”
The Court addressed the petitioner’s reference to the communication dated 15.02.2022 and stated that the said document did not establish a formal decision by the Commission to file the writ petition. It recorded, “there is no mention therein as to vide which minutes of meeting the so referred approval of the competent authority…was taken.”
The Court noted that the said communication, originating from the Assistant Law Officer, “could not be and cannot be taken by a constitutional court to be bearing the decision of a constitutional body to file a writ petition against an adjudication made in a selection related matter.”
The Court clarified that its earlier decision was not solely based on the absence of formal approval but primarily on the lack of legal standing to maintain the writ petition. It referred to Paragraph 08 of its earlier judgment and stated that the writ petition did not involve “any legal/statutory/constitutional right and status of the petitioner – J&K PSC” nor did it require interpretation of “any rule/regulation governing the working and functioning” of the Commission.
The review petition’s tone and arguments were found by the Court to be an attempt to re-open issues already addressed. The Court observed, “The tone and tenor of the grounds of review petition is as if this Court dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that institution of the writ petition was without any prior and proper decision.” However, the Court clarified that the dismissal stemmed from a combination of lack of locus standi and absence of any legal injury to the petitioner.
The High Court dismissed the review petition in its entirety, holding it misconceived. It found no error apparent on the face of the record, nor any sufficient cause under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to justify reconsideration. The Court stated, “We, therefore, held the petition as misconceived and dismiss it.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. F. A. Natnoo, Advocate
Case Title: J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Rajeev Gupta & Others
Case Number: RP No. 87/2022 in WP(C) No. 802/2022
Bench: Justice Rahul Bharti, Justice Sindhu Sharma
[Read/Download order]
