The seniority of Patwaris must be determined by the merit obtained in the Departmental Examination, not by the initial selection as Patwar Trainees conducted by BOPEE.

ORDER :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, dated 27.09.2023 passed in O.A. No.921/2022, by which the prayer of the applicant-petitioners for determining their seniority in the post of Patwari on the basis of the select list dated 13.08.2012 prepared as per results of the initial entrance examination conducted by the J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination (BOPEE) for the purpose of selecting Patwar Trainees pursuant to the advertisement No.20-BOPEE of 2012 dated 09.05.2012 and in terms of Rule 24 of the J&K Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1956, (CCA Rules) which provides for determining the seniority on the basis of the merit obtained in the competitive examination was rejected. The plea of the petitioners is that the seniority should not be based on the Departmental Examination conducted before they were appointed as Patwaris as had been done.

BASIC FACTS:

2. Before we examine the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the basic facts of the case which are briefly summarized as under.

3. An advertisement was issued by the BOPEE vide Notification no. 20- BOPEE of 2012 dated 09.05.2012 for conduct of Common Entrance Test for selection of 1500 Patwar Trainees by laying down the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the said notification, namely, that the candidate must be permanent resident of J&K State (as then), must have passed B.A./B.Sc./B.Com/BCA/BBA/ or other Graduate Degree from a recognized university, must have working knowledge of Urdu and not below 18 years and not above 37 years, with age relaxation provided for reserved candidates. It may be mentioned, though not very relevant for our purpose, that such Entrance Test/Selection Test was to be conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Recruitment Board (SSRB), but the State Cabinet took a decision vide its Decision No. 62/10/2012 dated 09.04.2012 that instead of the SSRB the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examination, (BOPEE) would conduct the said test. There is no dispute with regard to the eligibility of the contesting parties or the conduct of the said test, and as such, it may not be necessary to dwell upon in much detail about those aspects.

However, there is a very important part of the advertisement which would be highly relevant for determining the issues raised in this appeal. The said advertisement contains a note at the bottom under the heading “IMPORTANT NOTE” which reads as under:

“Selected candidates after completion of training of nine months shall have to qualify the Patwar Examination to be conducted by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and the qualified candidates shall have to apply to SSRB for being selected as Patwari as and when these posts are advertised by SSRB. The selection of the candidates for Patwar training and subsequent passing of the Patwar Examination shall confer no right for being appointed as Patwari.” (emphasis added)

4. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the written test was duly held and results declared vide Government order No.201 REV(NG) of 2012 dated 13.08.2012, in which the list of selected candidates as Patwar Trainees as per their merit for undergoing the Patwar training in different districts was published. It appears that the present petitioners were placed higher than the private respondents in the select list of the Patwar Trainees.

5. After being selected as Patwar Trainees, the selected candidates underwent requisite training and took part in the Departmental Examination conducted by the Department (i.e., Revenue Training Institutes at Jammu and Srinagar) and the results of the same were declared vide order No. FC(A) 233 of 2013 dated 25.11.2013. In the said list prepared on the basis of the results of the Departmental Examination, petitioners were figuring below some of the private respondents, though they were pl