The retrospective application of new recruitment rules to deny promotion violates the vested rights of employees under prior rules, infringing on their fundamental rights to equality and fair treatment.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 3521/2014 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/8729/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:

a) “Quashing the Order No. DSEJ/16391 dated 09.10.2014 issued by the Director School Education, Jammu-respondent No.2.

b) Quashing the Order No: CEOK/NG/16668-75 dated 10.10.2014 issued by the Chief Education Officer, Kathua-respondent No.3.

c) Commanding and directing the Respondents to earmark/identify the vacancies of Library Assistant which had become available prior to the coming into force of the J&K School Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules of 2008, and consider the petitioners for promotion against with the such vacancies in accordance with the J&K School Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979, with the consequential benefit of seniority.

d) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.”

3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows:

a) The petitioners, employed as Library Bearers in the J&K School Education Department in various educational institutions in District Kathua, were appointed much prior to the promulgation of the J&K School Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008, which were notified vide SRO 308 dated 16.10.2008. At the time of their appointment, their service conditions were governed by the J&K School Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979.

b) According to the 1979 Rules, the post of Library Assistant was to be filled from Class-V Category (a) posts through 75% direct recruitment and 25% by promotion from Book Keepers/Library Bearers possessing matriculation qualification. The petitioners, who were appointed on the same date i.e., 28.02.2003, fulfilled both criteria: they were matriculate and held the requisite experience and eligibility for promotion as Library Assistants.

c) However, the respondents did not consider their claim for promotion under the 1979 Rules and instead applied the new Rules of 2008 against the posts that had become available before the Rules came into force. Under the 2008 Rules, the eligibility for promotion to the post of Library Assistant was modified, requiring matriculation with a certificate course in Library Science and three years of experience in the relevant category. The posts were also reorganized under Class VIII of Schedule II-A.

d) Due to this policy shift, the petitioners—despite being eligible under the 1979 Rules—were rendered ineligible under the 2008 Rules. Their grievance is that their right to be considered for promotion under the existing rules applicable at the time the posts became available was unjustly denied. The act of the respondents in applying the 2008 Rules retrospectively to deny promotion was alleged to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

e) The petitioners further submit that the Hon’ble High Court, in the case of similarly situated Laboratory Bearers (SWP No. 1321/2007 titled Shakuntla Devi & Others v. State & Others), held that the revised recruitment rules cannot operate retrospectively to take away the vested right of promotion available under the earlier rules. The said judgment had attained finality and was even affirmed by the Division Bench in multiple cases.

f) Henc