HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 03.09.2025 Pronounced on: 11.09.2025 Case No.:- WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 Er. Chagger Singh Billowria …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahil Raja, Advocate. Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir & ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with Mr. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate for R-1 to 3 Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Agam Gandotra, Advocate for R-5. Coram: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT (Per: Sanjay Dhar-J) 1. The petitioner, through the medium of these two writ petitions, has assailed judgment dated 06.06.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Tribunal‟) whereby two petitions, one filed by the petitioner herein (TA No. 2 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 8241/2021) and the other filed by respondent No. 5 (TA No. 8222/2021) have been decided by a common judgment. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the present writ petitions, as emanate from the record, are that respondent- Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred to as „the Board‟) issued Advertisement Notice No. 07 of 2008 dated 31.05.2008 whereby, inter alia, four posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Technical), Divisional Cadre, Jammu in the Transport Department of the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir were advertised. This included two posts in Open Merit category, one post in RBA category and one post in SC category. Initially, the qualification prescribed for the aforesaid posts as per the Advertisement Notice dated 31.05.2008 was “Diploma in Automobile Engineering from any recognized institution having at least one year experience in any recognized institution of the State Transport Undertaking”. 3. A corrigendum was issued to the aforesaid notification in pursuance to communication dated 18.06.2008 issued by the Transport Department and the eligibility qualification was prescribed in the following manner:- 1) Minimum general education qualification passed in X standard and 2) i. A diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years course) or 3 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 ii. A diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education (3 years course) or iii. Any qualification in either of the above discipline declared equivalent by the Central Government or State Government. 3) Working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both Light Motor Vehicle, Heavy Goods Vehicle and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine and 4) Must hold a driving licence authorizing him to drive motor cycle, heavy good vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles”. 4. It seems that the petitioner as well as respondents No. 4 and 5 submitted their application forms for their selection against one post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Technical) under Open Merit category. Thereafter the candidates were shortlisted for interview in terms of notification dated 18.12.2008. However, the interviews were later on postponed and the selection process was kept pending. 5. In the meanwhile, another Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2009 dated 24.01.2009 came to be issued by respondent No. 3 whereby more posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Survey) and Motor Vehicle Inspector (Technical) were advertised for selection, which were re-advertised vide Notification No. 02 of 2011 dated 28.12.2011. 4 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 6. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir vide Order No. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 issued directions for undertaking selection on the basis of written examination with a view to assess the merit of the candidates in place of merit determined on the basis of academic/technical qualification. Accordingly, the respondent-Board, vide its Notification No. SSB/N/Adm./2462-67/2012 dated 06.09.2012 decided to conduct written examination of the eligible candidates for their shortlisting. The respondent- Board dispensed with the earlier shortlisting of the candidates and decided to hold the written test of all the eligible candidates, who had applied pursuant to the afore- quoted two Advertisement Notifications. In this regard, Notification dated 19.01.2013 came to be issued. 7. Vide Notification No. 01 of 2013 dated 28.01.2013, result of the candidates, who had appeared in the written test for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector was declared, pursuant whereto, the names of shortlisted candidates on the basis of their performance in the written test, were published vide Notification No. SSB/Sel./Secy./2013/1935-45 dated 10.04.2013. In the said list, the names of the petitioner as well respondents No. 4 and 5 also figured and they were asked to appear for interview on the scheduled date. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that the criteria for interview was also published and the following criteria was laid down: 5 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 Diploma/Degree in Automobile/Mechanical Engineering. (To be given on the basis of marks obtained in the written test out of 100 marks to be converted into points) 70 points (Pro-rata basis) M.Tech 10 points (Pro-rata Basis) Viva voce 20 points Total 100 points 9. After completion of the selection process, respondent No. 4 was shown to have been selected under Open Merit category pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 07 of 2008 dated 31.05.2008. Questions were raised about the eligibility of the said respondent on the ground that he was not possessing the requisite experience. However, despite this, his name was recommended for appointment by the respondent-Board whereafter an appointment order was issued in his favour. However, respondent No. 4 despite having been given an opportunity by the respondent- Transport Department to produce the experience certificate at the time of document verification, he could not do so and, accordingly, he did not join the service. Thereafter, respondent-Transport Department sought recommendation of the candidate next in merit from the respondent-Board, but no recommendation was made by the Board. 10. It was stand of the respondent-Board that while processing the case for forwarding the next candidate in merit for 6 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 appointment, it was found that two candidates, namely, Rajan Singh and the petitioner herein, who were figuring at serial Nos. 3 and 5 of the merit list, had been wrongly shortlisted by giving weightage to their M. Tech Degree at shortlisting stage. It was further contended by the respondent-Board that in 104th Board meeting held on 30.01.2014, it was decided that candidature of the petitioner and Rajan Singh be withdrawn as the weightage earmarked for additional qualification could not have been awarded in their favour at shortlisting stage rather the same was to be awarded/accounted for while calculating the overall merit of the candidates i.e., merit secured in written test plus weightage earmarked for additional qualification plus points secured in viva voce. 11. It was further submitted that the candidate next in merit, namely, Tara Mani, who had figured at serial No. 2 in Open Merit /ESM category had already been selected in Junior Engineer (Mechanical), therefore, he could not have availed the benefit of ESM 2nd time. The respondent-Board further claimed that recommendation of the next candidate in merit, namely, Anshu Akash Gupta could not be made because his driving licence was not found to be satisfactory whereafter the matter was referred to the selection division and in the meantime, the waiting list had outlived its life of one year, therefore, no recommendation could be made. 7 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 12. Since no recommendation was made by the Board, therefore, respondent No. 5 Ramandeep Singh filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1096/2015 seeking a direction upon the respondents to recommend his candidature with a further direction to respondent-Transport Department to appoint him to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. The petitioner also filed another writ petition bearing SWP No. 403/2015 before this Court in which he claimed that he being next in order of merit, is entitled to selection/appointment. 13. Both the aforesaid writ petitions came to be transferred to the learned Tribunal after its establishment and vide impugned judgment dated 06.06.2025 both the writ petitions have been disposed of by the Tribunal by issuing a direction to the respondent-Board to recommend the candidature of respondent No. 5 herein for appointment against the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector within four weeks and to select and appoint him on the vacancy under Open Merit category w.e.f., 25.02.2014 i.e., the date when respondent No. 4 was appointed with all consequential benefits notionally. This, in effect, means dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner herein. 14. The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment on the grounds that respondent No. 5 did not possess the requisite experience of working in a reputed automobile 8 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 workshop inasmuch as the workshop in which respondent No. 5 had gained his experience was not dealing with all types of vehicles as was required under the Advertisement Notice. It has been further contended that the endorsement, authorizing respondent No. 5 to drive heavy goods vehicle, was made in his driving licence on 10.11.2009, which is after the cut-off date. It has been contended that after the non-joining of respondent No. 4, the next candidate in order of merit, after excluding the other ineligible candidates, is the writ petitioner, therefore, he could not have been omitted from the selection. 15. It has been further contended that merely because the experience certificate relied upon by the writ petitioner was not bearing the date, does not make it unreliable and the observation of the learned Tribunal in this regard is not tenable. It has been contended that the experience certificate produced by the writ petitioner is perfectly in accordance with the requirements of the qualification criteria prescribed in the Advertisement Notice and the same could not have been rejected by the learned Tribunal. It has been contended that there are several instances, particulars whereof, have been given in the writ petition, in which the persons with similar experience certificates have been selected and appointed by the respondent-Transport Department. 9 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. The first ground that has been urged for challenging the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is that experience certificate of respondent No. 5 does not satisfy the requirements of qualification criteria so far as it relates to working experience. As per Clause(3) of the qualification criteria, which has been quoted hereinbefore, a candidate was required to have working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop, which undertakes repairs of light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine. The certificate of experience that was submitted by respondent No. 5 along with his application has been issued by M/s Choudhary Motors Pvt. Ltd. It reads as under: “This is to certify that Mr. Ramandeep Singh S/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh R/o Bhour Camp, Ward No.1 was under training and taken experience of Diesel and Petrol vehicles at our workship M/s Chowdhary Motors Pvt. Ltd, Channi Himmat, Jammu (J&K) from May 2007 to till date. He has as appreciably good conduct and performs his assigned duties delightly and with a professional approach. His sincerity and dedication towards work will definitely prove him as asset for any organization……” 10 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 18. From a perusal of the aforesaid certificate, it is clear that respondent No. 5 is certified to have undertaken training and experience of diesel and petrol vehicles at the workshop- M/s Chowdhary Motors Pvt. Ltd. The contention of the writ petitioner is that this certificate does not meet the requirement of Clause (3) of the qualification criteria as it does not specify the types of vehicles and it only certifies that respondent No. 5 has worked as a Trainee. It has been contended that M/s Chowdhary Motors Pvt. Ltd is authorized dealer of Mahindra Motors, which manufactures only light motor vehicles and not heavy motor vehicles. 19. Both the aforesaid contentions raised by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner are without any substance. The certificate clearly indicates that respondent No. 5 has undertaken training and has gained experience of diesel and petrol vehicles. The type of vehicles may not be mentioned in the certificate but the word ‘vehicles’ appearing in the certificate clearly refers to all types of vehicles. So far as the contention regarding type of vehicles with which M/s Chowdhary Motors Pvt. Ltd is dealing, it is not in dispute that M/s Chowdhary Motors Pvt. Ltd., is authorized dealer of M/s Mahindra Motors. It is a fact of common knowledge that M/s Mahindra Motors manufactures not only light motor vehicles but it also manufactures heavy passenger 11 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 and heavy goods vehicle. In support of this position, the respondent No. 5 has produced the requisite documents before the Tribunal. 20. In any case, once there is no dispute about the authenticity of the certificate relied upon by respondent No. 5, neither the employer nor this Court can go behind the contents of the said certificate. The moment the issuing authority of a certificate confirms the authenticity of the certificate issued by it, the question as to which types of vehicles were dealt with by the person holding the certificate or whether he had actually gained the experience cannot be gone into either by the respondent-Board or by this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction. The contention of the writ petitioner in this regard is, therefore, without any substance. 21. The aforesaid observations hold true for the certificate issued in favour of the writ petitioner as well. The writ petitioner had produced along with his application form experience certificate issued by the Deputy General Manager, J&K SRTC, Jammu, according to which, he had gained experience to undertake repair of light motor vehicles fitted with petrol and light commercial vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger service vehicles fitted with diesel engine. The certificate further provides that the writ petitioner has experience of ten years. 12 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 22. It is true that the said experience certificate does not bear any date but it does bear the seal of the issuing authority. Its authenticity has not been disputed by the issuing authority. Merely because in answer to an RTI query, it has been stated by some official of the J&K SRTC that light motor vehicles are not being repaired in the workshop of J&K SRTC does not make the certificate of experience produced by the writ petition incapable of being relied upon. 23. As already stated once authenticity of a certificate is not questioned by the issuing authority, its contents have to be relied upon. Therefore, it was not open to the learned Tribunal to go behind and enquire into the contents of the certificate. Merely because the certificate does not bear the date of issuance, the same does not make it questionable or unreliable. The certificate in question has been submitted by the writ petitioner along with his application meaning thereby it has been issued prior to the said date and at that time, the writ petitioner had the experience of ten years. The contents of the certificate clearly satisfy the requirements of Clause (3) of the qualification criteria. Therefore, by holding the writ petitioner as ineligible after rejecting the certificate produced by him, the learned Tribunal has fallen into error. 24. That takes us to the question whether the doubts raised by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner regarding the 13 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 driving licence of respondent No. 5 can be entertained. As per Clause (4) of the qualification criteria, a candidate was required to hold a driving licence, authorizing him to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle. The manual copy of the driving licence that was produced by respondent No. 5 along with his application form contains an endorsement dated 10.11.2006 authorizing him to drive transport vehicle and heavy goods vehicle. It also contains an endorsement dated 22.03.2007, authorizing him to drive Public Service Vehicle. 25. According to the writ petitioner, the endorsement with regard to authorization relating to heavy goods vehicle is dated 10.11.2009, which is after the cut-off date. In this regard, a closer look at the copy of the driving licence reveals that there is an insertion in the date mentioned in the manual copy of the driving licence and it appears that figure 2006 has been converted into figure 2009. The signature of the official of the registering authority bears the date as 10.11.2006 meaning thereby that the endorsement has been made somewhere in 2006 and not in 2009. This position becomes further clear from the documents produced by respondent No. 5 before the learned Tribunal by way of additional affidavit. The verification report of the licensing authority clearly mentions that endorsement for transport 14 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 vehicle was made on 11.11.2006 and the endorsement for PSV bus was made on 22.03.2007. 26. Once endorsement for transport vehicle was made in the driving licence of respondent No. 5 in the year 2006, he became authorized to drive any type of transport vehicle. A transport vehicle, as per Section 2 (47) of the Motor Vehicles Act means public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. In view of this position of law, it cannot be stated that respondent No. 5 was not holding a driving licence meeting the requirement of Clause (4) of the qualification criteria. 27. Having held that both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 were eligible to apply for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Technical) in accordance with the qualification criteria prescribed by the Board, the next question that falls for determination is as to which of the two candidates i.e., the petitioner and respondent No. 5 is entitled for selection or in other words, which of these two candidates has higher merit amongst the eligible shortlisted candidates. 28. Respondent-Board was directed to produce the record indicating merit position of the candidates, who had participated in the selection process. A perusal of the merit list reveals that the writ petitioner has obtained 43.0913 points whereas respondent No. 5 has obtained 39.4000 points. It is to be noted that the writ petitioner has been 15 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 given weightage of 6.69 points on account of additional qualification. He had only secured 30 marks in the written test whereas respondent No. 5 had secured 36 marks in the written test. 29. The writ petitioner has been erroneously given 6.69 additional points on account of his M.Tech qualification, which he had admittedly obtained through distance mode from Vinayaka Missions University. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of “Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rabi Shankar Patro”, 2018 (1) SCC 468, the engineering degrees of those students, who have obtained these degrees from deemed to be universities through distance mode, have been cancelled and all advantages and benefits flowing out of these degrees have been withdrawn unless the students clear the test devised by AICTE within the stipulated time. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that he has cleared any such test, therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, degree certificate relied upon by the writ petitioner could not have been taken into consideration by the respondent-Board while calculating his overall merit in the selection process. When we deduct these 6.69 points from the overall merit obtained by the writ petitioner, his merit becomes inferior to the overall merit of respondent 16 WP(C) Nos. 2188/2025 & 2189/2025 No. 5. In these circumstances, it is respondent No. 5, who is entitled to be considered for selection. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the ultimate conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal through the medium of the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference from this Court. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE JUDGE JAMMU 11.09.2025 Naresh/Secy. Whether order is speaking: Yes Whether order is reportable: Yes … Naresh Kumar 2025.09.11 18:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document