Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti, in a decision on the scope of judicial review in recruitment matters, has dismissed two clubbed writ petitions seeking age relaxation to enable over-age candidates to participate in a fresh recruitment process for Sub-Inspector posts in the J&K Police. The petitioners questioned the maximum-age condition in the new notification and sought extension of an earlier upper-age relaxation. The Court held that the petitions were “fated to suffer an outright dismissal” as the candidates had approached the High Court without first pursuing the appropriate statutory remedies, and that Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act bars the High Court’s original jurisdiction in such service and recruitment disputes, requiring recourse to the Central Administrative Tribunal. All interim directions operating in the petitions were vacated.

The matter arose from two clubbed writ petitions filed by candidates who had participated in an earlier recruitment process for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Jammu & Kashmir Police. The petitioners had taken part in the selection process pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2021, under which age relaxation was granted due to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although some of the petitioners cleared the Computer Based Test and subsequent physical tests, they were not included in the final select list.

Also Read: State Governments Cannot Add Qualifications For Public Posts Beyond Union Rules: Supreme Court

Subsequently, a fresh recruitment notification was issued in November 2024 for new vacancies of Sub-Inspector, prescribing a maximum age limit of 28 years as on the cut-off date. The petitioners, having crossed the age limit, challenged the notification and sought extension of the earlier age relaxation to the fresh recruitment. They relied upon statutory orders issued in 2021 granting age relaxation and contended that the benefit should continue.

The respondents opposed the petitions, stating that the earlier age relaxation was confined to a specific recruitment notification and that the petitioners had neither approached the competent authority for relaxation nor availed the remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal, despite service matters being covered under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Court examined the maintainability of the writ petitions at the threshold and recorded that “the institution of present two clubbed writ petitions has taken place with a backdrop situation which needs to be set out first before coming to deal with very entertainability and maintainability.”

While analysing the nature of the relief sought, the Court noted that the petitioners were effectively seeking participation in a fresh recruitment process despite being overage, and recorded that “the petitioners are seeking that despite being overage somehow they be allowed to have a participation in the selection process for the posts of Sub-Inspector for which advertisement be issued afresh with age relaxation condition.”

On the reliance placed upon statutory orders granting age relaxation during the earlier recruitment, the Court observed that “the age relaxation granted by reference to Advertisement Notification No. 06 of 2021 is not available to be invoked for the selection process envisaged under Advertisement Notification No. 02 of 2024.”

Addressing the procedural conduct of the petitioners, the Court stated that “without first having approached the concerned authority empowered to consider and grant age relaxation by making up a case before the concerned authority, the petitioners have directly landed themselves in the present writ petitions.”

The Court further clarified the scope of judicial review, recording that “This Court is meant to examine a decision making done at the end of the decisionmaker/s, in exercise of judicial review jurisdiction. In the present case, there is no such decision before this Court got generated by the petitioners by first approaching the respondents with a grievance, be it at their individual level or collective level...as if this Court holds the key for the petitioners to gain entry in the recruitment/selection process by age relaxation dictate.”

On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court took note of the applicability of the Administrative Tribunals Act and recorded that “section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985… ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the recruitment/service related matter on its original side.”

It was further observed that “this Court cannot dilute the rigour of section 28… which required the petitioners to have first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench.”

Also Read: Penal Liability Doesn’t Pass To Legal Heirs; J&K And Ladakh High Court Quashes Employee’s Suspension Linked To Father’s Corruption Case

The Court ordered that “this Court is not obliged to entertain the present writ petitions,” and that “the present writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Any interim direction/s operating in the aforesaid writ petitions shall also stand vacated.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rudhar Partap Singh, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General; Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate; Mr. Nakul Singh, Advocate

Case Title: Dinesh Singh Chib & Others v. UT of Jammu & Kashmir & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: IKLHC-JMU:4631
Case Numbers: WP(C) Nos. 3049/2024 and 28/2025
Bench: Justice Rahul Bharti