Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5165
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, J, MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, A
Satya Dev Singh – Appellant
Versus
D/o Education Ut Of J & K – Respondent
T.A./4245/2021
Mr. R.D. Singh Bandral, Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. A.A.G., Mr. Dewakar Sharma, ld. DAG, Mr. Hunar Gutpa, ld. DAG
The court upheld the validity of roster-based promotions under the J&K Reservation Rules, affirming that seniority must be determined based on actual promotion dates, not retrospective claims.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - J&K Reservation Act, 2004 - Seniority fixation and promotion based on roster points - The petitioner challenged the seniority of respondents promoted as Senior Lecturers and Incharge Principals based on roster points, claiming it violated constitutional guarantees of equality. The court found that the seniority list issued in 2003 was final and promotions were valid under applicable rules. (Paras 5, 11, 12, 15)
(B) Promotion - Reservation - The court upheld that roster-based promotions are permissible within constitutional limits, provided overall representation remains within prescribed quotas. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Lecturer, contested the seniority and promotions of reserved category candidates, arguing that their retrospective promotions violated his rights and the principles established by the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found no merit in the petition, affirming the validity of the seniority list and promotions based on established rules.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of seniority fixation based on roster points and the applicability of the J&K Reservation Act to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the seniority list had attained finality and that the promotions were valid under the J&K Reservation Rules, independent of the 85th Constitutional Amendment.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 1026/2005 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/4245/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:
a) “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that writ petition may kindly be accepted by issuing a writ of certiorari quashing:
b) Government order No.782-Edu.of 2004 dated 30-9-2004 whereby the seniority of respondents 4 to 92 has been fixed by the government as Senior Lecturers on the basis of the Reservation roster point and thus making them senior to the petitioner.
c) Quashing the government order whereby the respondents 4 to 13 and 51 to 80 have been promoted as Incharge Principals on the basis of the said un constitutional and illegal seniority list.
With
d) A further writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to treat the petitioner as senior to respondents 4 to 92 as senior Lecturers and re-cast the seniority list accordingly on the basis of the merit obtained by them when they were selected' and appointed as Lecturers and promote the petitioner to the post of Principal in School Education w.e.f. Ist January 2005 with all consequential benefits.
With
e) A further writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to grant the promotion to the petitioner to the higher post of Principal interms of J&K Reservation Act 2004 which has come into force w.e.f. 23-3-2004 when it was published in the Government Gazette w.e.f. 1-1-2005 with all consequential benefit.
With
f) A further writ of prohibition restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from regularizing, confirming respondents 4 to 13 and 51 to 80 as Principals and also restraining them from making further promotion of respondents 14 to 50 and respondents 8 to 92 on the basis of the said unconstitutional and illegal seniority of Senior Lecturers.
g) Cost of the petition with such other additional or alternate relief which this Hon'ble court may in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper be also awarded to the petitioner.”
3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in his pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The petitioner submits that the promotion of reserved category candidates based on roster points—allowing them to leapfrog over general candidates in the seniority list—has had a detrimental impact on his service progression. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 1189, has categorically held that the grant of promotion based on roster points does not automatically entitle a reserved category promotee to claim seniority over general category candidates promoted later on merit. Seniority must be determined from the date of actual promotion and not from any deemed retrospective date. Thus, the petitioner, having been promoted vide the same order as respondents 4 to 92, ought to be treated as senior to them.
b) The government order No. 782-Edu of 2004 dated 30.09.2004, which fixed the seniority of respondents 4 to 92 as Senior Lecturers above the petitioner, is therefore challenged as being unconstitutional, illegal, and in contravention of binding Supreme Court precedents.
c) It is further contended that respondents 4 to 13 were promoted as Principals under the Scheduled Caste category and respondents 51 to 80 under the Scheduled Tribe category, despite being junior to the petitioner. Their promotion, based solely on the erroneous seniority list, deserves to be quashed. The respondents 4 to 92 were admittedly placed junior to the petitioner in the seniority list of Lecturers, and they held the post of Lecturer as on 01.04.2003—the date of the promotion order—thus, their retrospective promotion with effect from earlier dates was legally unsustainable.
d) The petitioner alleges that the retrospective promotions granted under the assumption that the 85th Constitutional Amendment to Article 16(4-A) applies to
