Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3910
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
D.S.Mahra, Prasant Kumar, JJ
Yasir Faiz Jan – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K through Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Public Works Department (R&B), Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu – Respondent
T.A.NO.: 1028 of 2021 (SWP No. 50 of 2019) | O.A.NO.: 275 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. M.Y.Bhat, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Faizan Majid Bhat
For the Respondents:Mr. Waseem Gul, GA; Mr. Jahangir Ganai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mehnaj Rather (R5 to R7); Mr. Shah Amir for R4
The court ruled that seniority must be determined based on merit as per the applicable rules, emphasizing that special rules take precedence over general ones in conflicts.
Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Engineering (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1978 - Rule 11 - Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 - Rule 24 - Seniority of Assistant Engineers - The Tribunal partially allowed the OA, directing the re-examination of seniority for certain applicants based on merit, while dismissing the claims of others who were wrongly placed below other engineers due to improper wing changes. (Paras 45 and 46)
(B) Administrative Law - Seniority Determination - The court emphasized that seniority must be determined based on merit obtained in the select list, as per Rule 24(b) of CCA Rules, and the special provisions of Rule 11 of the Engineering Rules must prevail over general rules. (Paras 31 and 44)
(C) Public Interest - The court found that the change of wing for most applicants was not in public interest but based on personal requests, impacting their seniority placements. (Paras 41 and 42)
(D) Judicial Precedents - The court referenced settled principles that special rules govern over general rules in case of conflict regarding seniority determination. (Paras 33 and 44) (E) Final Orders - The Tribunal directed the respondents to issue a reasoned order regarding the seniority of four specific applicants within 6 weeks while upholding the final seniority list for others. (Paras 45 and 46)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of petitioners and respondents (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments regarding seniority and wing changes (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 3. court's analysis of applicable rules for seniority (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 4. decision on seniority and re-examination of cases (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of cases (Para 47 , 48) |
ORDER
Prasant Kumar, Member (Admn.)
TA No. 1028 of 2021
(SWP No. 50 of 2019)
On 4.6.2024, in WP(C) No. 1342 of 2023 and CM No. 3164 of 2023, Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, passed the following judgment –
“14. However, since the final seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil), PW (R&B) Department vide Government Order No. 480-PW (R&B) of 2022 dated 30.12.2022 has been challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the petitioners herein have also been arrayed as party respondents in the said OA, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed above, the impugned order dated 11.1.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench, in TA No. 1028 of 2021 is set aside and the petitioners herein are ordered to be impleaded as party respondents in the said TA no. 1028/2021 by restoring the same to its original number.
Further, we direct the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench to list the TA No. 1028/2021 along with OA No. 275/2023 and the Tribunal is requested to decide the same expeditiously after giving opportunity of hearing to all the contesting parties. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.”
OA 275 of 2023
The applicants, in the instant OA No. 275 of 2023, are aggrieved of Government Order No. 480-PW (R&B) of 2022 dated 30.12.2022 in terms of which the Final Seniority List of Assistant Engineers (Civil) of PW (R&B) Department has been published and the applicants have been placed below 55 Engineers, who have been arrayed as Private Respondents in this OA.
2. Accordingly, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:–
a. That the impugned Order No. 480-PW (R&B) of 2022 dated 30.12.2022 in terms of which order Final Seniority List of Assistant Engineers (Civil) of PW (R&B) Department has been issued be quashed qua private respondents no 5 to 57, as the same has been framed in violation of the Rule 24(B) of CCA Rules and in violation of law laid down on the subject matter.
b. The respondents be directed to fix the seniority of the applicants in the Department on the basis of merit obtained by them in the select list dated 31.12.2007 in terms of first proviso to Rule 24 read with Rule 24 (b) of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as has been directed by the Hon’ble Tribunal also in terms of Judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed in TA No. 1028/2021 and show the petitioner at the appropriate places.
c. That after fixing the seniority regularize the petitioners against AEE posts along with other eligible candidates who are holding in charge AEE posts.
d. The respondents be prohibited from operating the impugned seniority list for all purposes till final outcome of the OA.
e. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in the interest of justice and equity.
3. The applicants have also prayed for interim relief that the impugned Order No. 480-PW (R&B) of 2022 dated 30.12.2022, in terms of which order Final Seniority List of Assistant Engineers (Civil) of PW (R&B) Department has been issued, be stayed qua private respondents.
4. The case of the applicants, as made out in the instant OA, is that they were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Civil) vide Government Order No. 419 PW (R&B) of 2007 dated 31.12.2007 and in this order the arrangement was made in order of mer
