The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of direct recruits should be determined based on the date of their appointments, especially when the quota rule has failed.

1. The short and the only question involved for consideration in this case is the fixation of seniority between the promotees and direct recruits appointed to the rank of Sub-Inspectors of Police. This question was first raised by the promotees in SWP No. 240 of 1992 titled Mehraj-ud-din and others versus State and others decided on 31-07-1998. The same question was agitated by the promotees in SWP No. 4796-4822/1996 decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 09-09-1998.

2. The Director General of Police being the appointing authority implemented the judgment vide order No. 4016 of 1998 dated 04-12-1998. Simultaneously with the issuance of this order, seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of J&K Executive Police as on 31 -11-1998 was also notified. The petitioners challenged the order dated 04-12-1998 (supra) on the basis of which the seniority of the direct recruits as well as the promotees has been determined on the grounds:

i) that the same has been determined in violation of the judgment sought to be implemented and

ii) that it is against the notification issued vide SRO-104 dated 15-02-1978 by virtue of which recruitment to the rank of Sub-Inspectors is to be made 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector.

3. The petitioners numbering 50 are both Assistant Sub-Inspectors as well as Sub-Inspectors. Their grievance is that the official-respondents have not worked out the year-wise vacancies before finalising the seniority list and has prejudiced them.

4. The contention of Mr. Zaffar A. Shah, appearing for the petitioners, is that fitment of the direct recruits and the promotees in the seniority had to be made only after ascertaining the year-wise vacancy position in the absence of which correct seniority position cannot be determined. Since this exercise has not been carried out by the official-respondents, the seniority list is liable to be quashed. His further argument is that seniority assigned to the direct recruits on the basis of their year of recruitment without working out the quota available to them in 1990 is bad being contrary to the mandate of SRO-104 of 1978 (supra) in terms of which the fitment in the seniority has to be in the ratio prescribed namely 1:1.

5. Mr. Riyaz A. Jan, appearing for the private respondents, has, however, justified the order impugned on the ground that the private-respondents though appointed in the year 1990, but their appointment was against the back-log vacancies, which remained unfilled between 1984 and 1989 for want of recruitment from the market. Ordinarily, the private-respondents, argued the learned counsel, should have been pushed up in the seniority and those appointed by promotion against the posts meant for direct recruits pushed down, but this has not been insisted upon by the direct recruits. This, however, according to learned counsel, does not mean that all the 154 vacancies on which the direct recruits were appointed have to be treated to have become available only in the year 1990.

6. Mr. Zaffar Qureshi, who also appeared for some of the private-respondents, while adopting the submission made by Mr. Jan, pointed out that relief claimed by the petitioners, has in fact and substance, been denied to them by this Court while disposing of SWP No. 4796-4822/1996 on 09-09-1988 (supra). He also argued that if quota rule is to be implemented, many of those, who were promoted between 1984 and 1989, will have to be pushed down which will disturb the settled position resulting from the failure of the official-respondents to adhere to the ratio for appointment to the rank of Sub-Inspector in terms of SRO-104/92 (supra).

7. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. M.I. Qadri, has on the other hand argued that petitioners cannot have any grievance against the seniority list because some of them are yet to be promoted while others were promoted in the year 1991 and that too against the vacancies which became av