The court recognizes the right to notional seniority from 1998 based on parity with similarly situated candidates while denying monetary benefits for any period before actual appointment.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 2090/2014 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/8025/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

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

a) “Allow the present writ petition;

b) command and direct the respondents more particularly respondent No. 1 to consider and give effect to the appointment of the petitioner as Teacher w.e.f. the year 1998, when other selectees pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 6 of 1996 were appointed in the year 1998;

c) command and direct the respondents to grant all consequential service benefits including seniority w.e.f. 1998 as Teacher, promotion to the post of Master from the date those appointed in the year 1998 were promoted as Masters and monetary benefits attached to the post of General Line Teacher retrospectively from the year 1998 till 31.07.2013, when the petitioner for the first time came to be appointed as Teacher vide Order No. CEOK/Legal/16156-70 dated 31.07.2013, excluding the period commencing from 14.07.2009 till 31.07.2013 during which period the petitioner was serving as Rehber-e-Taleem Teacher;

d) ANY other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in her pleadings are as follows:

a) The petitioner is a citizen of India and a permanent resident of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. She applied for the post of Teacher in District Cadre Kathua in response to Advertisement Notification No. 6 of 1996 issued by the J&K Services Selection Recruitment Board (SSRB). Despite possessing higher educational qualifications, namely graduation and a B.Ed. degree, and being more meritorious than many selected candidates, she was excluded from the select list in favour of candidates with only 10+2 qualifications.

b) The petitioner's exclusion was challenged by her and similarly situated candidates in various writ petitions, leading to the landmark judgment dated 18.10.1999 in LPA No. 364/1999 titled Balwinder Kour v. State of J&K & Ors.. The Division Bench held that the selection criteria giving 50 marks for 10+2 qualification was excessive and unconstitutional, as it operated to the detriment of candidates possessing professional qualifications like B.Ed. The Court directed the SSRB to revise the selection criteria in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

c) In compliance, the SSRB issued Notification No. 1 of 1999, enhancing the weightage for B.Ed qualification. Multiple similarly placed candidates, including Smt. Anuradha Sharma (under Notification No. 7 of 1993), were granted appointment based on these directions, even though they were not parties to the original litigation. Smt. Sharma was appointed as a Teacher via Govt. Order No. 500-Edu of 2003 dated 24.04.2003.

d) Despite the same directions being applicable, the petitioner was denied similar treatment and had to undergo protracted litigation. The High Court, in judgment dated 03.11.2008 in SWP No. 1128/2006, set aside the rejection and directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s case in light of the 18.10.1999 judgment. The recommendation in her favour was issued only on 11.09.2012. Due to inaction by the respondents, the petitioner had to initiate contempt proceedings, and only thereafter was she appointed as a Teacher vide Order No. CEOK/Legal/16156-70 dated 31.07.2013—approximately 15 years after the selection process.

e) The petitioner’s grievance further includes the