The principle of finality of litigation and constructive res judicata prevents an applicant from reopening an adjudicated appointment grievance by selectively modifying the relief sought after a prolonged delay and acceptance of the original terms of employment.

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

a) Allow the instant original application;

b) To issue directions to the official respondents to appoint the applicant as Draftsman in PDD department under SRO 349/98 with all consequential benefits keeping in view of his qualification i.e. Three Year Diploma in Electrical Engineering.

c) To issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for his appointment in PDD department as parity with similarly situated person as draftsman in different department including PWD and PDD department.

d) Prayer for the grant of any other interim or final relief as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.

2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Draftsman in the Power Development Department under SRO 349 of 1998 with all consequential benefits, on the strength of his qualification of Three Years Diploma in Electrical Engineering. The applicant has also sought parity with similarly situated persons who, according to him, have been appointed as Draftsmen in different departments, including the Public Works Department and Power Development Department, under the Jammu and Kashmir Appointment of Outstanding Sportspersons Rules, 1998 .

3. The case of the applicant is that he possesses Three Years Diploma in Electrical Engineering and is an outstanding sportsperson within the meaning of SRO 349 of 1998. In pursuance of the advertisement notice issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council, published in Daily Excelsior on 11.01.2010, he applied for appointment under the outstanding sportsperson quota. According to him, having regard to his technical qualification, he was required to be appointed against a suitable non-gazetted post in the Power Development Department, either as Junior Engineer Grade-II or at least as Draftsman.

4. It is pleaded that in terms of the Power Development Department Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1981, the post of Draftsman is a non-gazetted post and the qualification prescribed therefor is two years certificate course in Draftsmanship in Electrical/Mechanical Engineering. Since the applicant possesses a Three Years Diploma in Electrical Engineering, he claims that he was eligible and more suitable for appointment as Draftsman. However, vide Government Order No. 471-GAD of 2012 dated 26.04.2012, the applicant was appointed as Technician-III in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900 in the Power Development Department.

5. The applicant has further pleaded that he had earlier approached the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir by filing SWP No. 2355/2015 seeking parity with persons appointed as Junior Engineer Grade-II in the Power Development Department. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, he preferred LPA No. 57/2017 before the Division Bench, but the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld. The applicant now states that the present claim is not for appointment as Junior Engineer Grade-II but for appointment as Draftsman, and therefore, according to him, the present cause survives independently.

6. The applicant has placed reliance upon the case of one Akshi