The practice of maintaining separate seniority lists for different wings in the Police Department had assumed the strength of law, and delay and laches barred the petitions.

JUDGMENT :

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.

The present batch of petitions have been preferred against the judgement and order dated 31.03.2021, passed by the full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the TAs filed by the petitioners, challenging the promotion of private respondents as Inspectors (Armed) in the J&K Police made by the PHQ vide order dated 21.07.2005. The petitioners also seek a certiorari for quashing the tentative seniority list of Inspectors (Executive/Armed) issued vide order dated 29.08.2013 and the final seniority list issued vide order dated 23.11.2015.

Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:-

2. The petitioners herein initially filed the writ petitions before the High Court, which upon creation of the Central Administrative Tribunal Jammu Bench, Jammu were transferred to the Tribunal for disposal. The grievance of the petitioners, as set up in the petitions, was that an advertisement notice dated 20.11.1993 was issued by the official respondents inviting applications for the post of Sub-Inspectors in the J&K Armed Police without reference to any particular wing. The petitioners came to be appointed in the year 1995 as against the private respondents, who came to be appointed as Sub-Inspectors in the year 1998. It was asserted that upon appointment, the official respondents on their own accord placed the petitioners in the Executive Wing of the Police Department as against the private respondents, who were placed in the Armed Wing.

3. The grievance of the petitioners was that even when they had been appointed prior in point of time, the private respondents, who were junior to the petitioners were promoted as Inspectors prior in point of time on the basis of a separate seniority list of Sub-Inspectors posted in the Armed Wing, which was illegal and in violation of the statutory rules.

4. The case set up was that as per Rule 172 of the J&K Police Rules, seniority of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors was to be maintained inter-range i.e. a common seniority list was to be maintained for the entire State of J&K, which rule was followed in breach. It was asserted that there ought to have been a common seniority list based upon the date of appointment as Sub-Inspectors. The petitioners also questioned the grant of benefits of promotion as Inspectors and Dy. SPs in favour of the private respondents, which according to them was in violation of Rule 172 of the J&K Police Rules.

5. The defence set-up by the official respondents was that the seniority list upto the level of Sub-Inspectors in all the three cadres i.e. J&K Executive, Armed Police and SDRF was being maintained separately and further that the seniority of Inspectors was maintained at PHQ on the basis of date of promotions, which were made as per the vacancies available in the respective cadres. In addition to this, it was alleged that the petitions suffered from delay and laches, inasmuch as, the petitioners having been appointed in the year 1995 all along remained silent and did not question the final seniority list framed at the level of Sub-Inspectors issued by the PHQ vide order dated 04.12.1998. It was also asserted that the private respondents were promoted as Inspectors in 2005-06, whereas the petitioners were promoted in the year 2007 and having remained silent could not be permitted to challenge the same on account of delay and laches and must be presumed to have relinquished their rights as such.

6. A Division Bench of the Tribunal heard the matter in detail. However, there was a difference of opinion between the learned Judicial Member on the one hand and the learned Administrative Member on the other. The conclusions and the directions issued by the learned Judicial Member are briefly reflected herein:-

“65. Looking to the facts of the case and settled law, we would hold that two seniority lists at the SIs level and consequently drawing of a common seniority list of Inspectors are non est and voi