Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4215
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.), Prasant Kumar, Member (Admn.)
Mohammad Kazim – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Kargil through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department, Kargil – Respondent
OA
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Promotion and Regularization
Act Referred
J&K Employment Exchange (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1969
J&K Employment (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules
Jammu and Kashmir (Gazetted) Service Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1994
Classification, Control and Appeal Rules 1956: R.24, R.25
SRO 59
SRO 210 of 1994
SRO-718
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Speaking order - Direction to consider representation by reasoned order - Impugned order merely states claim to be placed before PSC post rule finalization without applying mind to applicant's specific case or existing rules, rendering it non-application of mind. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Applicant appointed Junior Employment Officer in 1999, placed on stopgap basis as Assistant Director in 2004 per seniority (Sl.No.2/3). Multiple departmental proposals for regularization forwarded to PSC, but repeatedly returned for revised rules. Earlier employees from same cadre regularized/promoted. Tribunal's prior order (08.02.2023) directed reasoned decision on representation, leading to impugned deferral order. Applicant challenges as discriminatory.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order quashed; respondents directed to consider/regularize promotion to Assistant Director with all benefits as given to similarly situated persons, with due dispatch.
Issues: Whether deferral of regularization pending revised rules violates equality when existing rules applied to others; validity of impugned order vis-à-vis Tribunal's direction and departmental recommendations.
Ratio Decidendi: Existing recruitment rules suffice for regularization where eligibility and seniority established; parity with similarly situated employees mandatory under Articles 14 & 16; delay cannot justify discrimination or excuse application of rules already used for others. (Paras 9 & 10)
Result: OA allowed.
For the applicant: Mr. M.M. Dar, Sr. Adv.
For the respondents: Mr. Rais-ud-Din Ganaie, Dy. A.G., Mr. Shah Aamir, Mr. Mahapara Ali
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's reliefs and factual timeline of promotion claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. impugned order discriminatory and contrary to prior regularizations. (Para 4) |
| 3. respondents defend delay due to absent revised recruitment rules. (Para 5) |
| 4. psc's limited role; proposal rejected for rule discrepancies. (Para 6) |
| 5. existing 1969 rules apply; denial violates articles 14 & 16. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. quash order; direct regularization with benefits. (Para 10 , 11) |
O R D E R
Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)
Through the medium of the instant OA, applicant seeks following reliefs:-
“(a) By an appropriate order or direction, whereby the impugned order No.33-L&E of 2023 dated 20.06.2023 issued by the respondent No.1 be quashed and declared null and void;
(b) By an appropriate order or direction, whereby respondents more particularly respondent No.2 and 3 be restrained from giving effect to the impugned order for not accorded further consideration to his case;
(c) By an appropriate order or direction, whereby the respondents be directed to consider and pass formal regularization/confirmation order of promotion of the applicant to the post of Assistant Director Employment retrospectively from the year 2004 i.e. from 14.07.2004 and release all service/consequential benefits from the said date accordingly in favour of the applicant;
(d) By an appropriate order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents more particularly respondent No.3 to consider the case of the applicant for formal regularization on the basis of communications time and again made by respondents 1 and 2 more particularly communication dated 04.04.2012 and 19.02.2018 and accord him the same treatment as well as has been accorded to the similarly situated employees vide orders dated 09.02.2001 and 28.10.2009, with further direction to respondent No.1 to produce whole record pertaining to the process initiated by him for according formal confirmation/regularization to the promotion of the applicant against the post of Assistant Director Employment and also measures taken by him for finalizing the revised rules before this Hon’ble Tribunal for onwards consideration.”
2. Alongside the main relief in the OA, the applicant has sought for interim relief for staying the impugned order No.33-L&E of 2023 dated 20.06.2023 issued by respondent No.1 with further direction to respondents, more particularly respondents No.2 & 3, to finalize the revision of the recruitment rules and accord consideration to the promotion of the applicant till consideration of the main OA.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant in the instant OA, are reproduced as under:-
(i) The applicant was appointed as Junior Employment Officer vide order No.44-ED of 1999 dated 15.04.1999. According to the applicant and as per the recruitment rules, he was promoted and allowed to function as Assistant Director Employment as his next promotion, but right from the year 2004, no confirmation is being accorded by the respondents for confirmation and regularization of his promotion.
(ii) Prior to the applicant’s appointment, Government order No.11-ED of 1998 was passed on the basis of cabinet decision whereunder the respondent department was re- organized and along with some other posts, 14 posts of Assistant Directors were also created and certain Junior Employment Officers, who were working in the department, were considered for formal promotion to the posts of Assistant Director Employment after conducting a formal DPC vide order No.11-L&E of 2001 dated 09.02.2001. The above referred promotion order was issued by the then authorities on the basis of minutes of meeting conducted by the then committee on 17.10.2000, who were deliberating the issue whether the Technical Assistants who are holding the higher grade than the Junior Employment Officers can be made feeding cadre for the promotion to the post of Assistant Director Employment and it was decided accordingly, but so far as
