New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India, on November 26, 2025, dismissed a civil appeal filed by the J&K Service Selection Board & Anr. against a judgment of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, which had set aside the selection list for Foresters. The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, affirmed that the evaluation criteria for selection could not be altered after the interviews were conducted and the selection process was virtually complete.
The case arose from a recruitment notification issued by the Board for 38 posts of Foresters in the Jammu Division. The minimum academic qualification prescribed was “10 + 2 or equivalent with Science.” Initially, the mode of evaluation allotted 25 points out of a total of 100 for a B.Sc. Forestry degree. However, after conducting interviews of the shortlisted candidates, the Board changed the evaluation criteria, bifurcating the B.Sc. Forestry degree into two categories: a three-year course awarded 20 weightage points and a four-year course awarded 25 points. This change was challenged by candidates holding a three-year degree.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court initially dismissed the writ petition, but the Division Bench allowed the intra-court appeals, holding that the alteration was arbitrary. The Division Bench relied on decisions of the Supreme Court, including K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008).
The Supreme Court noted the arguments of the appellants, who contended that the change was necessitated due to representations highlighting the difference in duration and quality of the two degrees, and therefore awarding different weightage was not arbitrary. They further argued that “after the selection had been completed, there were no posts available for adjustment of the writ petitioners who succeeded in the writ appeals.”
The respondents, Sudesh Kumar & Ors., represented by counsel, submitted that the Division Bench’s decision was based on the settled law laid down in K. Manjusree (supra), which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan. It was argued that the mode of evaluation could not be changed at the stage of preparing the select list.
In its Order, the Supreme Court observed that it was “not in dispute that the weightage points allotted to a B.Sc. degree in Forestry were 25 points at the stage when the candidates participated in the selection process, and this was altered only after interviews were held, that is, when all stages of participation by a candidate in the selection process were over.”
The Bench further elaborated:
“We acknowledge that recruiting bodies could devise an appropriate procedure for successfully concluding the recruitment process, provided the adopted procedure is transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary, and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Here, we find that the evaluation procedure was altered after the interviews were over, candidates had completed their participation in the selection process, and, most importantly, it was altered based on representations of candidates. Such alteration, in our opinion, cannot be termed transparent and does not have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved inasmuch as the academic qualification required for the post was merely 10+2 with Science, with greater emphasis on physical attributes of a candidate, including viva voce.”
The Supreme Court concluded that “a change in the selection criteria after interviews were held, in our view, was rightly not countenanced by the Division Bench of the High Court.” Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed the matter.
Case Details
Case Name: J & K Service Selection Board & Anr. vs. Sudesh Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10932/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date of Order: November 26, 2025
Appellants’ Advocates: Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, Adv.; Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR; Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.; Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.
Respondents’ Advocates: Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR; Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv.; Mr. Sankalp Narain, Adv.; Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv.
