A classic example of ‘pick and choose’: J&K&L High Court imposes cost over delay in dental assistant appointments
J&K Ladakh High Court cost, JK health dept recruitment delay: Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal said that action by the state which failed to exhibit uniformity across similar circumstances shall be deemed vitiated and bad in law on the ground of discrimination.
3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Dec 6, 2025 12:21 PM IST
JK health dept recruitment delay: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court fined the health and medical education department for delaying appointment of dental assistant/junior dental technician from revised selection list. This image is generated using AI.
JK health dept recruitment delay: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently rapped the health and medical education department for picking and choosing selective court judgments and filing an appeal after six years, solely to protect the appointment of ousted candidates from selection in government jobs.
Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal on December 4 also imposed a fine on the department to pay Rs 10,000 to each of the candidates who appeared in the revised recruitment list but did not get appointment as dental assistant/junior dental technician in 2013.
“We have observed numerous instances, where the Government has treated similarly situated persons disparately. However, the instant case stands as a classic example where the appellant-the Union Territory of J&K has adopted a policy of ‘pick and choose’ even in implementing court judgments,” the court said.
Background of case
The candidates, who applied for the post of dental assistant/junior dental technician role in the health and medical education department in 2013, were excluded by the J&K Service Selection Board (SSB) on the ground that their qualification with diploma in ‘Dental Hygienist Training Course’ did not meet the eligibility criteria.
The candidates, in 2015, filed a plea against this selection list in a court which in 2017 directed the department to treat the candidates as eligible for the post and make appointments strictly in accordance with the merit.
Accordingly, the department issued a revised selection list in 2018. However, the J&K SSB noted that some of the candidates, who had been earlier selected before the revision of the selection list, were not figuring in the revised select list and sought creation of seven supernumerary posts to accommodate those lower-merit candidates.
The department, in 2023, after six years of the court’s order, moved high court on grounds that the candidates selected by the J&K SSB had already joined, and granting eligibility to those candidates would trigger a multiplicity of litigation. The department also claimed that the selected candidate had no indefeasible right to appointment.
While consistency in judicial decisions constitutes the bedrock of any legal system, parallelly, consistency in state action is indispensable, serving to guarantee fairness, non-arbitrariness, and predictability in governance.
Action by the state which fails to exhibit uniformity across similar circumstances shall be deemed “vitiated and bad in law on the ground of discrimination”.
The department had shown a “regrettable disregard for the fate of the successful candidates” in the revised select list, who were deprived of their rightful appointment for seven to eight years.
The officials of the department chose to challenge the 2017 order to issue a revised selection list instead of rectifying the delay solely to protect the “appointment of ousted candidates” in the revised select list.
Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.
Expertise
Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.
Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:
Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.
Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.
Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More
