Shortlisted, Then Shut Out: J-K High Court Rejects Estoppel Plea, Calls Residence-Based Recruitment Unconstitutional
The High Court rules that district residence cannot bar candidates from government jobs, striking down a discriminatory recruitment clause in the judiciary Class IV posts.
Published : January 3, 2026 at 7:13 PM IST
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that denying a candidate the right to compete for a government post solely based on district residence violates the Constitution. The Court declared an impugned recruitment clause for Class IV posts in the district judiciary as unconstitutional.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar allowed a writ petition filed by Balwinder Kumar, a 42-year-old Scheduled Caste candidate from Village Gudwal, Vijaypur, in Samba district, who was barred from appearing in an interview for the post of orderly in District Baramulla despite being shortlisted.
The court ruled that Clause 1(i)(a) of Advertisement Notification No. 01 of 2019, issued by the High Court’s Chief Justice’s Secretariat, unlawfully discriminated against candidates on the ground of residence and offended Articles 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of India.
“It is thus beyond the pale of any discussion that the impugned clause of the advertisement notification clearly brought about discrimination, in that it prohibited the petitioner from participating in the selection process for a post borne on the District cadre Baramulla only on the ground of his residence,” the bench said.
The advertisement dated January 10, 2019, invited applications for various Class IV posts in the district judiciary of Jammu and Kashmir, including nine orderly posts in District Baramulla, of which one post was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category.
Balwinder Kumar, who possesses the required matriculation qualification, applied for the SC post and disclosed in his online application that he was a permanent resident of Samba district. He was shortlisted for viva voce, with his name appearing at serial number 623, and was called for an interview on July 16, 2019, before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Baramulla, who was also the chairperson of the interview committee.
However, at the stage of scrutiny of documents, Kumar was not permitted to participate in the interview because he was not a resident of Baramulla district.
Aggrieved, Kumar approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the restrictive clause, permission to participate in the selection process, and appointment to the post if found meritorious.
The respondents included the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through its Commissioner Secretary, Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs; the Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department; the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir through its Registrar General; the Principal Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Justice; and the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Baramulla.
The High Court administration, while opposing the plea, argued that Kumar had participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the eligibility condition and was therefore estopped from challenging it after rejection.
The bench firmly rejected the argument of estoppel, holding that participation in a selection process does not amount to acceptance of unconstitutional conditions.
“It is not a case where the petitioner, being aware of the offending clause, participated with his eyes wide open and took a chance in the selection,” the court observed.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar, writing the judgement for the bench, clarified the legal position by stating, “What is precluded from challenge after having participated in the selection process is the process, the procedure and the selection criteria adopted. The estoppel, however, cannot be pleaded where a challenge pertains to gross illegality in the selection process or where the selection has been completed under a provision which is ultra vires the Constitution.”
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court added, “The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct, and its violation in any manner is impermissible.”
The bench also relied heavily on an earlier Division Bench judgement in Mulakh Raj and others versus State of J&K, reiterating that neither the Union Territory nor the High Court has the power to prescribe residence-based eligibility conditions in the absence of a law enacted by Parliament.
“No citizen should be discriminated against for employment in any office under the State or Union,” the court quoted from the earlier ruling, emphasising that discrimination on the ground of residence is prohibited under Article 16(2).
The judges underlined that Parliament has not enacted any law permitting such a residence requirement for public employment in Jammu and Kashmir, making the impugned clause legally unsustainable.
Allowing the petition, the court declared Clause 1(i)(a) of the advertisement notification as ultra vires the Constitution and directed the respondents to interview Balwinder Kumar afresh and consider him for the SC post of Orderly in District Baramulla.
“If the petitioner makes the grade and is found to be the most meritorious candidate for the post in question, an order of appointment in his favour shall be issued,” the bench directed.
The court, however, clarified that any appointment would be prospective, taking effect from the date of issuance of the formal appointment order, and ordered that the entire exercise be completed within two months from the date the judgment is served. No costs were awarded.
Also Read
