An administrative authority cannot, through an executive order, nullify or circumvent a binding judicial command or deny parity to similarly situated persons whose claims have already been judicially held as covered by previous binding precedents.

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The SWP No.1882/2017 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.637/2022 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

I. Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the Government Order No. 118-Edu of 2017 dated 15.03.2017;

II. Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents appoint the petitioner against Class-IV post in light of the judgment dated 11.11.2016 passed in SWP No. 891 of 2006 read with judgment dated 30.07.2009 passed in LPASW No. 49 of 2008 and on the analogy of persons appointed against Class-IV posts vide Government Order No. 440-Edu of 2010 dated 13.05.2010 and Government Order No. 685-Edu of 2012 dated 04.09.2012, retrospectively w.e.f. 04.04.2003;

III. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents along with cost of the petition.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -

a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1882/2017, which was originally filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and, on transfer, came to be registered as T.A. No. 637/2022 before this Tribunal. The applicants challenge Government Order No. 118-Edu of 2017 dated 15.03.2017, whereby their claim for appointment against Class-IV posts in the School Education Department came to be rejected. Their further prayer is for a direction to the respondents to appoint them on the strength of the earlier judgments passed in their favour and on the analogy of other similarly situated candidates who were appointed pursuant to the same controversy.

b) The case of the applicants, as projected in the pleadings, is that the Government, vide Government Order No. 1706-GAD of 1997 dated 11.11.1997, authorized recruitment to Class-IV posts in different departments through the concerned Heads of Departments. Pursuant thereto, the Director School Education, Jammu issued Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 1998 dated 21.04.1998 inviting applications for Class-IV posts such as Laboratory Bearers, Library Bearers, Gasmen, Orderlies and Safaiwalas in the districts of Jammu Division. The applicants claim to have applied in response to the said advertisement. A selection committee was thereafter constituted vide order dated 08.08.1998 for conducting the process and forwarding recommendations to the Director School Education, Jammu.

c) Before the process could culminate, the Government withdrew the aforesaid delegation vide Government Order No. 683-GAD of 1999 dated 14.06.1999 and called for the status of available Class-IV posts. According to the applicants, instead of submitting proper reports, some Chief Education Officers, including the Chief Education Officer, Rajouri, issued ante-dated appointment orders in violation of the prescribed procedure. When the matter came to light, the Director School Education, Jammu, vide order dated 28.06.1999, cancelled the appointments made in several districts including Rajouri. Though this cancellation was initially kept in abeyance by Government Order No. 906-Edu of 1999 dated 05.07.1999, the Government, after examining the matter, withdrew the said protection and restored t