CAT asks SKUAST-K to consider candidature of PhD holder for interview, stresses equal opportunity & merit

13/08/2026

SRINAGAR, Aug 12: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, has directed Sher-i-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir (SKUAST-K) to consider the candidature of an eligible woman applicant for participation in the interview process for an academic post, observing that transparency, equal opportunity and merit-based selection are the bedrock of constitutional governance.
A bench comprising Member (Judicial) M.S. Latif and Member (Administrative) Prasant Kumar passed the order on Wednesday in OA No. 877/2026 filed by Darakhshanda Neelam, who had challenged the university's decision not to consider her candidature for the post of Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist (Genetics & Plant Breeding).
Neelam, represented by Advocate M.A. Wani, had challenged University Order No. 519 (Estt) of 2026 dated August 11, 2026, by which her grievance had been rejected and her candidature was not considered.
She sought directions to the university to accept her application and supporting documents, scrutinise her candidature in terms of Advertisement Notice No. 4 of 2026 and permit her to participate in the selection/interview process without treating the alleged non-receipt of hard copies as an automatic disqualification.
The Tribunal noted that SKUAST-K had issued Advertisement Notification No. 04 of 2026 on April 8, 2026, inviting applications for various academic posts, including Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist (Genetics & Plant Breeding).
According to the applicant, she was fully eligible and experienced and had submitted her application along with the requisite credentials and documents, but was not called for the interview. She had earlier approached the Tribunal in OA No. 867/2026, following which the Tribunal had directed the university to treat her application as a representation and consider the matter, with an intimation to her by 8 pm on August 11.
The university subsequently passed the impugned order on August 11, rejecting her grievance.
The applicant contended that she was a meritorious candidate holding a PhD and possessing research and academic experience, but had not been called for the interview. The university's order, however, stated that she had not fulfilled the requirements of the advertisement as she had not submitted the printout of the online application form and self-attested copies of supporting documents, certificates and testimonials to the Registrar, SKUAST-Kashmir.
Advocate Wani argued that the university's decision had been taken in a mechanical manner and had deprived the applicant of a fair opportunity to compete for the post, despite her having uploaded the required documents online.
The Tribunal observed that courts ordinarily do not interfere in academic matters, which fall within the domain of experts. However, it said the issue before it was whether a candidate could be deprived of the right to have her candidature considered merely because hard copies of documents already submitted online had not been furnished, and whether such a stand could be sustained in law.
The bench emphasised the constitutional principle of equality in public employment, observing that employment is a form of national wealth that must be shared among citizens and that adherence to equality in public employment is a basic feature of the Constitution.
The Tribunal also took note of the applicant's age, academic qualifications and experience. It recorded that she was 41 years old, possessed a PhD and had research and other academic experience.
The bench observed that the question was whether such a candidate could be denied consideration merely because hard copies had not been submitted, particularly when her merit could otherwise have been evaluated. It also made it clear that mere participation in an interview would not confer any right of selection or appointment upon her.
The Tribunal further observed that public power to make appointments to public posts is conferred for public good and is entrusted to the concerned selecting and appointing authorities by the government.
"That trust shall always be used and not abused," the bench observed, adding that the ultimate object of judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do justice.
The Tribunal said that although the controversy fell within the university's domain, the institution should, in addition to complying with rules and regulations, keep in view the concept of equity in law.
It stressed that transparency, equal opportunity and merit-based selection are the "hallmark and bedrock" of the Constitution.
In this context, the bench relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court Division Bench in Government of NCT of Delhi and others versus Sheetal, decided on August 25, 2023, which had considered the issue with reference to other judicial precedents.
Appearing for SKUAST-K, Advocate Faizan Bhat argued that the applicant had missed the prescribed deadline and could not subsequently be permitted to submit documents, as such relaxation could become discriminatory towards candidates who may have similarly failed to comply with the requirements.
The university also contended that allowing such relaxation could make the entire selection process open-ended.
The Tribunal agreed with the general proposition advanced by the university but distinguished the facts of the present case.
It noted that the applicant had subsequently approached the university with a representation along with all her hard copies. In these circumstances, the bench observed, she could have been considered and allowed to participate in the interview process, particularly because participation in an interview by itself could not confer any right of selection or appointment.
The Tribunal said the university could have adopted such a course while keeping in view the principle of equal opportunity and the requirement that selections be transparent and merit-based.
The bench ultimately disposed of OA No. 877/2026 along with the connected miscellaneous applications.
It provided that the respondent university could consider the applicant's case for participation in the interview at its own risk and responsibility and, if it found that her case deserved consideration in the facts and circumstances, it was within its rights to allow her to participate in the interviews.
The Tribunal clarified that the direction was being issued only in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case so that the applicant was not deprived of her right of consideration for participation.
Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the applicant's eligibility or otherwise to participate in the interview process.
It directed that while considering her case, SKUAST-K should take note of the Delhi High Court judgment referred to in the order.
The bench also requested the Vice Chancellor of SKUAST-K to make every endeavour to decide the matter in accordance with the Tribunal's order so that the applicant had no occasion to complain that her case was not considered in time. Advocate Faizan Bhat was directed to convey the concern of the Tribunal to the university.
The order was pronounced on August 12, 2026 by Member (Administrative) Prasant Kumar and Member (Judicial) M.S. Latif.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty