Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12581
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member, Ms. Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member
Sh. Rajendra – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary, Higher & Technical Education, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. – Respondent
Transferred Application No. 61/6020/2020 | Original Application No. 61/494/2023 | Contempt Petition No. 61/151/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sudershan Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Thapa, A.A.G., Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Mr. F A Natnoo
Seniority in public service should strictly follow the merit order established through competitive examinations, and any deviation undermines constitutional principles of equal opportunity.
Headnote:(A) Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 - Rule 24 - Seniority - Applicant challenged the promotion and seniority list of respondents based on alleged deviations from merit order in selection procedures and improper promotion qualifications. Court found seniority must follow the order of merit as per competitive exams. (Paras 18, 24, 27)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Tribunal has the power to adjudicate service disputes following the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir as Union Territory. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
Applicant challenged government orders regarding his seniority against private respondents and alleged irregularities in promotion processes which were contrary to his position in the PSC merit list. Multiple applications were filed leading to a consolidated hearing.
Findings of Court:
Impugned seniority lists were quashed due to violations of merit-based selection principles and necessary corrective actions directed for the applicant's proper placement in the seniority list.
Issues: Primarily centered on the correct application of seniority rules based on merit order in competitive examinations and the legality of promotions based on faulty seniority lists.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that seniority should be determined by merit according to recruitment rules, reinforcing that illegal promotions adversely affect rightful seniority positions. Such deviations breach constitutional safeguards.
Result: The applications were allowed, and the respondent department was directed to revise the seniority list in compliance with legal principles.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges against seniority lists and promotion processes. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. seniority determined by merit from competitive exams. (Para 18 , 21 , 24) |
| 3. directed corrective actions on seniority listing. (Para 27 , 28) |
ORDER
Per:- Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member
Since, the controversy involved in T.A. No. 6020 of 2020, O.A.No. 494 of 2023 and CP No. 151 of 2023 are interlinked to each other, all the three cases are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Initially, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir by filing SWP No. 278 of 2004, praying for the following reliefs:-
“a) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing Govt. order No. 653-Edu (Tech.) of 2000 dated 14.12.2000, whereby respondents have regularized ‘37’ candidates as Superintendent by deviation of quota as no prospective candidate under the category of J.E., Workshop Instructors A.V.T.S. were available (deviation of quota from source to another which is against the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as Suraj Parkash Gupta & Rs Vs. State of J&K and others.
b) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing seniority list issued vide Govt. order No. 30-Edu (Tech) of 2002 dated 5.3.2002 qua the private respondents wherein the private respondents have been shown as senior to the applicant.
(c) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the communication No. DIE/101/2003/1113 dated 05.06.2003 whereby the representation filed by the applicant has been rejected by the respondents.
(d) An appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give the notional promotion to the applicant to the post of Superintendent w.e.f. the date the post of Superintendent was advertised in the year 1993.
(e) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, in the alternative to place the applicant as senior to the private respondents by fixing the inter-se seniority on the basis of merit position obtained by them in the selection process conducted by the PSC.”
3. While issuing notices to the respondents in the aforesaid SWP, the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 19.02.2004, as an interim relief, directed that if any promotion is granted on the basis of change in seniority, that shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition.
4. After the reorganization of State of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and in view of the Notification No. G.S.R. 267 (E) dated 29.04.2020 read with notification No. G.S.R. 317 (E) dated 28.05.2020 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis regarding service disputes of the employees of UT of J&K and Ladakh was conferred upon this Tribunal and while considering the said fact, the record of Service Writ Petition No. 278 of 2004 was ordered to be transferred by the Hon’ble High Court to this Tribunal on 02.12.2020 and renumbered as Transferred Application No. 61/6020/2020.
5. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apt to point out that learned counsel for the applicant has made a submission at Bar that, he does not intend to press relief(s) No. (a) & (d) in the T.A., besides, applicant has no grievance with regard to the seniority position of private Respondents No. 4 to 6 in T.A. No. 6020 of 2020 and private respondent No. 5 in O.A. No. 494 of 2023.
6. The issue involved is about the seniority of applicant viz-a-viz private respondent No. 3 namely Ghulam Mohd. Bhat in T.A. No. 6020 of 2020 and respondent no. 4 in connected O.A. No. 494 of 2023.
7. The factual backdrop to the T.A. No. 6020 of 2020 is as follows:-
7.1 In pursuance to an Advertisement Notification No. 25 PSC of 1993 dated 06.09.1993 read with notification dated 12.11.
