Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court | Tribunal Misapplied Rule 64 of PSC Rules | Order on Principal Appointments in Degree Colleges Quashed
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, was erroneous and unsustainable. The court quashed the Tribunal’s order that had directed appointments from a select list of Associate Professors as Principals in Government Degree Colleges. The Division Bench concluded that the Tribunal had failed to correctly interpret Rule 64 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 2021. The High Court directed that fresh consideration of candidates for the post of Principal be undertaken in line with statutory rules, affirming that select lists cannot be operated beyond their annual cycle of validity.
The matter arose from the petition filed by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through its Higher Education Department and the Director of Colleges, Jammu. The dispute concerned the validity and continued operation of a select panel of Associate Professors prepared by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (PSC) for promotion to the post of Principal in Government Degree Colleges.
In 2022, the Higher Education Department requested the PSC to initiate the process for filling 105 vacant posts of Principals. The PSC, after completing the required procedure, forwarded a panel of 120 Associate Professors through its communication dated 05.12.2022. In addition, by a separate communication dated 06.12.2022, the PSC forwarded a list of 30 more candidates to be considered for appointment against ensuing vacancies anticipated up to November 2023.
On 21.12.2022, the Government issued Order No.270-JK(HE) of 2022 appointing 105 Principals from the initial panel. Subsequently, the Higher Education Department sought advice from the General Administration Department regarding filling 15 more posts. The General Administration Department advised placing a formal indent, and accordingly, on 20.03.2023, the PSC conveyed approval for appointment of 15 more Associate Professors as Principals. These appointments were effected through Government Order No.80-JK(HE) of 2023 dated 24.03.2023.
Further, as ten more posts became vacant up to 31.03.2023 and six more were anticipated between 01.04.2023 and 31.12.2023, the Higher Education Department placed another indent with the PSC on 17.04.2023. The PSC responded that the existing list of 30 candidates communicated on 06.12.2022 should be operated. Out of this list, 16 candidates were appointed against available vacancies. However, some candidates, including Prof. Arti Pandoh Gupta, Prof. Narinder Kumar, Prof. Rajender Kumar Sharma, and Prof. Anita Jamwal, could not be accommodated due to non-availability of vacancies within the panel’s life cycle.
Aggrieved, these respondents approached the Tribunal challenging the inaction of the Government and the subsequent Government Orders, particularly Government Order No.297-JK(HE) of 2024 dated 20.05.2024. This order held that the select panel had lost its validity after 30.11.2023. The respondents contended that their selection was valid and that they should be appointed as Principals.
The Tribunal allowed the claim and declared that the select list prepared by the PSC pursuant to the communication dated 06.12.2022 remained valid and subsisting. It consequently quashed Government Order Nos.297-JK(HE) dated 20.05.2024, 343-JK(HE) dated 21.06.2024, and 381-JK(HE) dated 18.07.2024. The Tribunal directed the Higher Education Department to issue formal orders of appointment and posting in favour of the respondents against the available vacancies.
Quoting Rule 64 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 2021, the Bench stated: “Select list shall be reviewed once a year. The officers who have already been promoted on the basis of a previous select list shall be removed from the list and the rest of the names along with those of others who may be eligible reconsidered for inclusion in the new list.”
The Bench observed: “It is, thus, obvious that once a select list is prepared, it will serve to supply the vacancies for a period of one year and thereafter the select list shall be reviewed and a new list shall be prepared by considering the candidates left from the previous list and those subsequently enter the consideration zone.”
The High Court recorded that the Tribunal had misread Rule 64: “The Tribunal without appreciating the true import of Rule 64, erroneously held that there was no life of the select panel prepared by the PSC and that the same could be utilized for filling up the vacancies, even the vacancies that may have fallen vacant after one year of the preparation of the panel.”
The Bench further stated: “That being the position, this select panel could not have been reviewed for framing fresh panel in terms of Clause (d) of Rule 64 of the Rules of 2021 till 04.12.2023. The panel was, thus, to serve as a reservoir for filling the vacancies that would have accrued till 30.11.2023.”
It was also noted: “It is true that Rule 64 of the Rules of 2021 does not fix any tenure or period of validity of the panel prepared by the PSC in so many words, however, reading of the Rule in its entirety makes it abundantly clear that the select panel once prepared cannot be reviewed in the same year and has to be reviewed after one year.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we find merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order and judgment passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside.”
“As the petitioners have already placed fresh indent to the PSC for filling up of the vacant and anticipated positions of Principals accrued upto 31st December, 2024 and the respondents, who are the left over candidates of the previous select list, are entitled to be considered along with those, who have subsequently entered the consideration zone, for promotion to the posts of Principals.”
“Government Order No.297-JK(HE) of 2024 dated 20.05.2024 has rightly considered the grievance of the respondents and found the same devoid of merit for the elaborate reasons contained in the said order.”
“Before parting, we, however, would like to direct the petitioners to adhere strictly to the seniority while placing the eligible Associate Professors as Incharge Principal(s). Such Incharge Principal(s) alone shall be delegated the Drawing and Disbursing Powers to run the institution, they are posted in.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudershan Sharma, Advocate
Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Director, Colleges, Jammu v. Prof. Arti Pandoh Gupta & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No.2367/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar
