Promotions made against the direct recruitment quota were illegal, and due process must be followed before any adverse action against affected parties.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar ‘J’

1) These two petitions filed by two set of the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arise out of judgment dated 14th of December, 2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench [“the Tribunal”] in TA No.231 of 2021 titled “Ghulam Mustafa & Ors. vs. Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council & Ors.” whereby the Tribunal has allowed the petition of respondents 5 to 23 (the private respondents herein) and directed the respondents 1 to 4 (the official respondents herein) to revert the private respondents being promoted beyond their quota. The Tribunal has further directed the official respondents to take the process of selection for the posts of Junior Assistants to its logical conclusion by issuing appointment orders in favour of the private respondents as per their merit with effect from the date the other similarly selected candidates have been appointed in pursuance of Advertisement Notice No.01 of 2016 dated 16^th of January, 2016.

2) Before we advert to the grounds of challenged urged by Mr. Shuja-ul-Haq, learned counsel representing the petitioners in both the petitions, we deem it appropriate to allude to the factual antecedents leading to the filing of these petitions.

3) The Department of School Education vide its letter No.SSRB/2-13-2546 dated 24^th of September, 2013, referred 42 posts of Junior Assistants in District Cadre Kargil to the District Subordinate Recruitment Board, Kargil, [“the Board”] for making selection. The Board vide Advertisement Notice No.01 of 2016 dated 16th of January, 2016, invited applications to fill up in as many as 96 posts of Junior Assistants available in district cadre of various departments. The notified 96 posts included 42 posts of Junior Assistants referred by the Education Department.

4) The private respondents responded to the aforesaid Advertisement Notice and sought their consideration against all the 96 posts of Junior Assistants notified by the Board. They participated in the written test and the viva-voce and were declared successful, as is evident from the award list prepared by the Board. While the private respondents were awaiting their appointment, they came to know that the Chief Education Officer, Kargil, had, vide its communication dated 8th of January, 2019, withdrawn some posts of Junior Assistants. The withdrawal of the posts by the Chief Education Officer, Kargil, directly impacted the chances of the private respondents being offered appointment in the Education Department. The move of the Chief Education Officer, Kargil, was resented by respondent No.2 and 3. Vide communication dated 8^th of January, 2019, the Deputy Director, DEDCC, Kargil, wrote back to the Chief Education Officer, Kargil, and intimated to him that withdrawal of posts, that too for unjustifiable reasons, was without any authority.

5) When the Chief Education Officer, Kargil, did not budge, the private respondents herein were constrained to file WP(C) No.1882/2019 titled “Ghulam Mustafa & Ors vs. Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council & Ors”. The learned Single Judge of this Court passed a detailed interlocutory order on 13^th of September, 2019, directing the Deputy Commissioner/CEO, Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, to take a decision on the recommendations of the Committee which had enquired into the issue of withdrawal of posts on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner and to ensure that the process of selection initiated in terms of Advertisement Notice No.01 of 2016 against the posts of Juni