Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1604
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, J, MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, A
Kamal Singh – Appellant
Versus
D/o Power Development Ut Of J&k – Respondent
T.A./1250/2020
Mr. Nitin Bhasin, Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG.
Administrative delays should not penalize eligible candidates; notional seniority must be granted to those unjustly denied appointment.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Retrospective appointment - The petitioner sought retrospective appointment as Technician III from 1998 based on merit, claiming violation of Supreme Court directions and constitutional rights. The court emphasized that administrative delays should not penalize eligible candidates. (Paras 3, 9, 11, 13, 16)
(B) Service Jurisprudence - Notional seniority - The court recognized the principle of notional seniority, stating that candidates unfairly deprived of appointment due to administrative errors should be accorded seniority from the date their rightful claim arose. (Paras 9, 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having secured 59.49 points in the selection process for Technician III, was denied retrospective appointment despite being eligible, while others with lower merit were appointed. The Supreme Court had directed filling unfilled vacancies based on merit. (Paras 3, 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was unjustly denied appointment and directed retrospective seniority from 1998, along with all consequential benefits, including pension under the old rules. (Paras 16)
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to retrospective appointment and seniority based on merit and the implications of administrative delays. (Paras 3, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that administrative lapses should not penalize candidates and emphasized the importance of equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16, affirming the right to notional seniority. (Paras 9, 11, 13)
Result: TA is allowed, directing retrospective appointment and consequential benefits.
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 2909/2016 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/1250/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:
a) “Commanding and directing the respondents to give retrospective effect to the appointment of the petitioner as Technician III in accordance with the marks secured by the petitioner in the selection process and from the date other similarly situated candidates who participated in the selection process to the post of Technician III pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 06 of 1997 dated 03.02.1997 were so appointed in the year 1998, with all consequential benefits including the fixation of seniority and all other service benefits in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.10.2005.
b) Commanding and directing the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as pensionable under the old pension rules as applicable prior to the year 2010.
c) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted in favour of the petitioner.”
3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in his pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The Power Development Department referred the posts of Technician III to the Services Selection Board for making the selection of suitable candidates. The J&K Services Selection Board, vide Notification No. 06 of 1997 dated 10-07-1997, advertised the posts of Technician III and conducted the selection. The selection process was challenged by non- selectees in a batch of writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, citing that the selection on a Divisional/District cadre basis was unconstitutional. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the petitions on 01.06.1999 in SWP No. 725/1998 titled Vijay Sharma & Ors v/s State & Others, directing that petitioners be appointed against available vacancies in different districts without disturbing the selection already made. Petitioners were held entitled to all consequential benefits minus monetary benefits.
b) The Government challenged this decision before the Division Bench through LPA (SW) No. 394/99 and connected LPAs. The Division Bench, vide order dated 16.11.2002, quashed the earlier direction for appointment but ordered a redrawing of the merit list on a state-wide basis. Subsequently, the State Government filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) 7612 of 2003, and the Apex Court, on 26.10.2005, directed that unfilled vacancies be filled from candidates who had secured more than the cut-off marks in the 1997 selection, to be appointed in order of merit. The Court clarified that age bar would not apply to such candidates.
c) The petitioner filed SWP No. 1025/2004 challenging the appointment of private respondents with lower merit to the post of Technician III. While this petition was pending, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 26.10.2005. The Hon'ble High Court subsequently, based on the respondents' no- objection statement, allowed the writ petition with directions for the petitioner’s case to be considered in light of the Apex Court's judgment. The State Government filed an LPA against this judgment, which was dismissed on 24.11.2005.
d) To implement the Hon’ble Supreme Court's directions, the respondents de-reserved 125 reserved category posts of Technician III, vide order dated 22.09.2006. The petitioner had secured 59.49 points in open merit District Cadre Jammu, whereas the lowest cut-off point for open merit in District Srinagar in the 1997 selection was 43.36 points. Consequently, the petitioner was eligible for appointment as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court's directions. Despite this, the petitioner's case was not recommended initially, which led him to file Contempt Petition COASW 47/2008. The respondents claimed that
