2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4848

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
Harleen Kour – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Dogra – Respondent
Original Application No. 985/2023|TA219/2021

Long-settled service positions via departmental recognition of appointments, seniority, and promotions over a decade cannot be disturbed on debatable cadre interpretations or disputed eligibility facts unless patent illegality proven; tribunals reject repetitive inter se rivalry litigation.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1987 - Rule 10 - Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979 - Service disputes involving cadre allocation, seniority, eligibility, promotions and headship - Posts originally created for dental college but later integrated into medical college cadre as deputation reserve posts - Appointments, seniority and promotions treated as part of medical education service by department over extended period - Challenges to foundational appointments and chain of promotions after more than a decade not to be entertained unless illegality is patent and self-evident - Debatable interpretations of administrative orders and service history not sufficient to unsettle long-standing service positions - Mixed causes of action combining service and information rights reliefs not maintainable in single proceeding - Fraud allegations in eligibility require conclusive proof and cannot annul appointments on disputed facts in collateral proceedings - Courts/Tribunals to avoid becoming forums for endless inter se career-blocking litigation between rival officers. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23)

(B) Service Law - Principles of delay, laches and settled rights - Long continuance in service with departmental recognition of appointments and promotions weighs against interference - Promotional orders issued after earlier litigations disposed of or dismissed not vitiated by procedural confusion - Headship designation consequential to valid service status not independently challengeable. (Paras 15, 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
Two cross-applications by rival professors in microbiology department of government medical college challenging each other's appointments, seniority, eligibility based on teaching experience, promotions to assistant professor/associate professor/professor, headship designation, and information rights denials. Dispute rooted in posts created for dental college in 2007, later made deputation reserve in medical college cadre via 2008 orders, with selections by public service commission in 2008-2009 and 2011, seniority in 2011, and promotions in 2022-2023 amid prolonged litigation since 2012.

Findings of Court:
Both applications dismissed. Challenges to promotions, regularizations and headship upheld as valid departmental actions. No interference with either party's appointment or service career. Collateral misconduct allegations not adjudicated.

Issues: Core issues were validity of cadre integration of deputation reserve posts, inter se seniority and promotional rights in medical education service, sufficiency of teaching experience for lecturer appointment under recruitment rules, and maintainability of mixed service-RTI claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Service positions acted upon by department for over a decade through appointments, seniority and promotions cannot be invalidated on debatable cadre interpretations; factual disputes on eligibility/fraud not resolvable in collateral proceedings after long delay; single proceedings cannot mix unrelated reliefs; tribunals must protect against repetitive litigation unsettling settled rights.

Result: Both O.A. No. 985/2023 and T.A. No. 219/2021 dismissed. Parties to bear own costs.