The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed two intra-court appeals (LPA No.213/2022 Srinagar Wing and LPA No.127/2022 Jammu Wing) filed by the Union Territory of J&K and others, thereby upholding the judgment dated 09.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.82/2020 (and the connected order dated 26.05.2022 in WP(C) No.3749/2019). The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice Arun Palli and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, in its judgment dated 23.04.2026, held that the cancellation of the entire recruitment process initiated pursuant to Advertisement Notices No.1 and No.2 of 2017 dated 12.09.2017 for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical/RE) and Junior Engineer (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical/RE) in the J&K Energy Development Agency (JAKEDA) was unjustified and liable to be quashed.
The recruitment process was initiated to fill 77 vacancies following the Administrative Department’s communication dated 02.08.2017. After administrative approval, M/s LM Energy and Software Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana was engaged to conduct the entire process including registration, examination and preparation of merit lists. The agency conducted the written examinations. However, vide order No.08-JAKEDA of 2019 dated 02.12.2019, the competent authority cancelled the entire selection process solely on the ground that the agency had been engaged without issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) or Expression of Interest (EOI), thereby depriving other agencies of participation. The learned Single Judge quashed the said cancellation order and directed the appellants to conclude the selection process within four weeks.
The appellants contended before the Division Bench that the competent authority was justified in cancelling the process due to the procedural lapse in the engagement of the agency and that the respondents had no vested right to challenge such cancellation. It was further argued that after the enactment of the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, a fresh reservation roster incorporating new categories had been issued, rendering continuation of the old process impermissible.
The Division Bench, after hearing Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr.AAG (with Ms. Saghira Jaffar) for the appellants in the Jammu Wing appeal and Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy.AG for the Srinagar Wing appeal, and Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhirash Sharma for the respondents in the Jammu Wing and Mr. Mian Tufail with Mr. M. Saleem Parray for the respondents in the Srinagar Wing, rejected the contentions of the appellants. The Court observed that “the sole justification for terminating the recruitment process was the non-issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) or Expression of Interest (EOI) during the selection of the testing agency. Apart from this specific procedural omission, the order assigns no other reasons to justify the cancellation. Consequently, the recruitment was scrapped based purely on a technicality in the engagement of the agency, rather than any deficiency in the selection process of the candidates themselves.”
The Bench categorically held that “the mere fact that the agency was hired without providing other entities an opportunity to participate, while a procedural omission, can hardly be considered a ‘cogent’ ground for cancelling a selection process that has reached an advanced stage.” It further noted that “the appellants have not contended that the agency lacked competence or engaged in malpractices, either during its engagement or throughout the conduct of the examinations. In absence of such substantive grounds, appellant No.2 was not justified in scrapping the recruitment solely on the basis of a non-issuance of an RFP or EOI and in fact, the cause projected for cancellation of recruitment process by the appellants is illusory in nature.”
Relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao (2010) 7 SCC 678 and Partha Das v. State of Tripura (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844), the Court reiterated that while mere participation does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, the State’s power to cancel a recruitment process is not absolute and must be exercised on cogent and bona fide reasons. The Bench also placed reliance on Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (1978) 1 SCC 405 to hold that “the validity of an executive order must be judged on the reasons mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh grounds in the memo of appeal or oral submissions.” Consequently, the ground based on the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 and the revised reservation roster was held to be unavailable as it was not the basis of the original cancellation order.
The Division Bench concluded that the learned Single Judge had correctly quashed the cancellation order. It accordingly dismissed both the appeals, holding that “we hardly find any reason to show indulgence and accordingly dismiss the appeal being bereft of any merit.” The Court directed that the copy of the judgment be placed on the record of LPA No.213/2022 (Srinagar Wing) as well.
Case Title: UT of J&K and others v. Sameer Ahmad Khan and others (LPA No.213/2022 Srinagar Wing) and UT of J&K and others v. Sharan Gupta and others (LPA No.127/2022 Jammu Wing)
Date of Judgment: 23 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Arun Palli and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 