J&K: HC declines contempt action against former JKSSB Chairman Khalid Jehangir

The court ruled that it cannot be claimed that failing to appoint applicants would constitute contempt since the Division Bench did not issue a directive ordering the issuance of appointment orders based on the decisions made by the relevant selection authority.

Srinagar (J&K): The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has declined to initiate contempt proceedings against former J&K Service Selection Board (JKSSB) Chairman Khalid Jahangir for failing to carry out a new selection procedure for the Assistant Information Officer Grade II positions for which the advertisement was published in 2006.

The High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that the directive could not be complied with in light of the Jammu and Kashmir Administration's policy decision to withdraw all posts referred to the JKPSC or JKSSB prior to October 31, 2019, for which the selections were not finalised or posts in which there were pending lawsuits.

As a result, the bench concluded that the SSB was unable to make any appointments in accordance with the selection procedure. The petitioner, Ishfaq Tantray, claimed that the administrative decision could not be utilised to overturn the court's ruling and charged the SSB with willfully flouting the rulings.

However, the court pointed out, "If the said administrative decision was taken specifically to nullify the effect of a judicial order in a particular case, certainly it will amount to violation of the court order. However, in the present case, what is worth considering is that the administrative decision taken on 29.01.2022 was not with regard to a particular case or with specific reference to the order dated 10.05.2013 but was of a general nature which was applicable to all those cases where the selection had not been finalized till the taking of the policy decision and in respect of those posts which were referred to JKPSC/JKSSB prior to 31.10.2019 and where there was litigation and cases were pending in the Court(s)."

"Thus, the said policy decision taken by the Administration does not appear to be attributed only to the case of the petitioners but is of general nature where selection processes could not be finalized," the bench said. The bench also took note of the fact that SSB had formed a committee in 2019 to start the hiring process from scratch under the directions of the Division Bench, and as a result, written tests and interviews had also been conducted.

A policy decision to remove the positions was made in the meantime, preventing the appointment of candidates. The court ruled that it cannot be claimed that failing to appoint applicants would constitute contempt since the Division Bench did not issue a directive ordering the issuance of appointment orders based on the decisions made by the relevant selection authority.

"Selection and appointment are two different and distinct parts of a recruitment process which do not necessarily have to go together. If we keep in mind the aforesaid difference in two processes of recruitment i.e., selection process and subsequent actual appointment process in terms of the recommendations made on completion of the selection process, we will be able to understand properly as to whether contempt has been committed by the respondent in the present case or not."

The bench elaborated on service law, saying that a person does not automatically have a right to an appointment just because they have been nominated for one by virtue of being on the select list. It was stressed that even if a candidate had been nominated for employment, the appointing body might decide not to appoint them for pertinent and legal grounds. These remarks led the court to clear the SSB of all contempt allegations and adjourn the case.