CAT upholds 2016 KAS PHC selection, dismisses aspirant’s plea

10/06/2026

JAMMU, Jun 9: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, has upheld the selection of candidates under the Physically Challenged (PHC) category in the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Co-mpetitive Examination, 2016, dismissing a petition filed by an unsuccessful aspirant challenging the appointments. A Bench comprising Member (Judicial) Rajinder Singh Dogra and Member (Administrative) Ram Mohan Johri passed the order while dismissing an Original Application filed by Rajender Singh of Udhampur district.
The applicant had challenged a communication issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) on August 24, 2020, rejecting his representation against the PHC category selection. He had also sought quashing of government orders issued in October 2019 and September 2020 appointing selected candidates. The dispute arose from the Combined Competitive Examination, 2016, conducted for recruitment to the Junior Scale of the Kashmir Administrative Service (KAS), Jammu and Kashmir Police (Gazetted) Service and Jammu and Kashmir Accounts (Gazetted) Service.
The petitioner alleged irregularities in the selection process, claiming that some successful candidates had relied on disability certificates issued after the prescribed cut-off date or certificates not issued in accordance with the applicable rules.
Opposing the plea, the respondents submitted that the applicant had secured 1083.28 marks, whereas the last selected candidate in the PHC locomotor disability category had secured 1119.22 marks. They argued that the applicant was not within the zone of selection and, therefore, had no enforceable right to appointment. After examining the matter, the Tribunal observed that a candidate who fails to secure sufficient merit cannot claim appointment merely by virtue of participation in the selection process or reservation status.
The Bench held that the applicant could not seek a broad inquiry into the disability certificates of selected candidates when his own merit position did not qualify him for selection.
The Tribunal further noted that the selected candidates had been examined by duly constituted Medical Boards and that courts and tribunals cannot ordinarily sit in appeal over expert medical assessments unless arbitrariness, mala fide intent or violation of statutory provisions is established.
Rejecting the allegations, the CAT said that mere suspicion could not substitute proof and that the applicant had failed to place any credible material on record to demonstrate that the Medical Boards were improperly constituted or that their findings were vitiated by fraud or bias.
The Tribunal also held that the recruitment process was governed by SRO 387 of 2008 and not by SRO 103 of 2018, observing that the latter could not be applied retrospectively.
Concluding that no illegality, arbitrariness, procedural impropriety or violation of statutory rules had been established, the Tribunal dismissed the application as devoid of merit and made no order as to costs.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty