Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10230
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
D.S. Mahra, MEMBER (JUDL.), Prasant Kumar, MEMBER (ADMN.)
Abdul Rashid Masoodi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
T.A. NO.: 2946 OF 2021 (SWP No. 2970 of 2019)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Hilal Noorani
For the Respondents: Mr. Rais Ud-din Ganaie, DAG
Arbitrary denial of promotion violates Articles 14 and 16; public authorities must uphold legitimate expectations and provide fair promotional opportunities.
Headnote:(A) Right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Promotion and up-gradation of posts - Denial of promotion and up-gradation can violate Articles 14 and 16 if done arbitrarily and without justifiable reasons. (Paras 12, 16)
(B) Legitimate expectation - Public authorities are bound to honor promises made or present practices, and failure to provide promotional avenues constitutes violation of Article 14. (Paras 13, 17)
(C) Constitutionality of rules - The inability to promote creates stagnation, which is contrary to the principle of an efficient public service. Relevant cases considered include Raghunath Prasad Singh vs. Secretary, Home Department (AIR 1988 SC 1033), JC Yadav vs. State of Haryana (AIR 1990 SC 857), and others. (Paras 6, 8, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner worked as Lecturer and was assigned the additional role as Instructor Stenography but denied promotional avenues, leading to his stagnation. He was lodged under constant pursuit for promotion since his service began without any increment.
Findings of Court:
In this context, the rejection of the upgradation claim without requisite justification highlighted the arbitrariness of administrative actions, dismissing the Government Order No. 805-GAD. (Paras 19, 20)
Issues: Was the denial of promotion arbitrary, and did it violate the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16? The ruling reflects the need for governmental transparency in decisions regarding promotions for civil servants, especially in light of established practices.
Ratio Decidendi: Court highlighted the lack of promotional avenues makes service ineffective, urging adherence to constitutional norms while determining promotional criteria. (Paras 12, 16)
Result: Instant TA allowed, Government Order No. 805-GAD set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. denial of promotional avenues creates career stagnation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. promotional prospects are essential for effective public service. (Para 12 , 13 , 16) |
| 3. government must adhere to promises regarding promotions. (Para 19) |
ORDER
Prasant Kumar, Member (Admn.) :-
The instant TA No. 2946 of 2021 was initially filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir as WP (C) No. 2970 of 2019. Vide Order dated 16.9.2020 Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir transferred this case to Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench and the case was listed before the Srinagar Bench on 7.2.2022.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the rejection of his claim to provide him the benefit of upgradation of post from Instructor, Stenography of Secretariat Training (Pay Scale 7500 – 12000) to the pay scale 10000 – 15200 prescribed for the post of Deputy Director from the date such facility came to be provided to similarly situated persons. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks following relief -
a) By issuance of writ, one in the nature of Certiorari, the Government Order No. 805-GAD of 2019, dated 15.7.2019, issued by respondent no. 2 (Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration Department), be quashed.
b) By issuance of writ, order or direction one in the nature of mandamus, the respondents be commanded to provide the benefit / facility of up-gradation of the post substantively held by the petitioner, i.e. the Instructor Stenography / Secretariat Training Classes carrying the pay scale of Rs. 7500 – 12000 to the pay scale of Rs. 10000 – 15200 prescribed for the post of Deputy Director, for a period spread over w.e.f. 23.1.2009 upto 30.6.2009 from the date such facility came to be provided to man other similarly circumstanced persons of the petitioner or any other post suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
c) By issuance of writ, order or direction one in the nature of mandamus, the respondents be commanded to implement the decision taken by the Establishment cum Selection Committee in its meeting held on 23.1.2009 read with concurrence of Finance Department dated 28.3.2018 as well as the recommendations made by the Authorities from time to time in regard to the implementation of the decision of the Establishment cum Selection Committee and release the pay grade of Rs. 10000 – 15200 (pre-revised) in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 23.1.2009.
d) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court 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. Facts of the case, as made out in the instant TA, are that the petitioner worked as Lecturer, Stenography in the Education Department carrying the pay scale of Rs. 8000 – 13500. The petitioner was assigned additional charge of Instructor Secretariat Training Class vide Government Order No. 569-GAD of 2005, dated 20.5.2005, a post included in the Jammu and Kashmir Secretariat Subordinate (Gazetted) Service on the same scale. However, the petitioner contends that he was not provided with any promotional avenues which caused serious prejudice to his rights.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that when even one promotional avenue was not provided to the petitioner, he preferred representations and his case was evaluated for providing him promotion to the post of Deputy Director in the Department of Administrative Reforms, Inspection and Trainings (DARIT) in relaxation of rules as the rules of DARIT did not provide for the same. However, the Finance Department did not initially agree to the proposal and suggested the DARIT to explore other options to reward the petitioner for his meritorious performance of his official duties. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary and then before the Establishment-cum- Selection Committee, under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, on 23.1.2009.
