DB upholds CAT judgment quashing draft redrawn seniority list of Sr JKAS officers
JAMMU, Apr 5: Division Bench of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Dhar has upheld the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) where draft redrawn seniority list of senior KAS officer was quashed.Jammu travel guide
The judgment of CAT was challenged in a bunch of petitions and the Division Bench while dismissing the petitions observed, “the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the private respondents were empanelled for the anticipated vacancies. In fact, the minutes of the meeting dated 29.05.2008 clearly establish that the private respondents were considered against the vacancies of the year 2008. Apart from this, it was not open to the Government to alter the seniority list to the detriment of the respondents without hearing them and once the Government accepted the judgment of the Tribunal, whereby order dated 24.06.2011 was upheld, it could not have altered the seniority list without challenging the judgment by way of appropriate proceedings”.
A Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) comprising its Chairman Justice L Narasimha Reddy and Administrative Member Jamshed Akhtar had quashed the draft re-drawn seniority list of senior Jammu & Kashmir Administrative Service members.Jammu travel guide
The applicants had challenged various steps initiated by the Government since 01.04.2020, for the revision of the seniority list of Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Services officers particularly in respect of appointments made to the Time Scale between 01.01.2004 and 01.12.2018.
The CAT, while dismissing the petitions challenging the final seniority list dated June 24, 2011, had set-aside the order dated order dated 01.02.2000, constituting a committee to review the final seniority list dated 24.06.2011 and the Government order dated 05.08.2020, revising the final seniority list dated 24.06.2011. The CAT also held that Rule 15 (4) of 2008 Rules and Clause (1) of the proviso thereof are illegal and contrary to law.
After hearing battery of lawyers, Division Bench of High Court observed, “after the order dated 30.03.2021 was passed by the Jammu Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, the official respondents issued a seniority list, whereby the private respondents Dr Ghulam Nabi Itoo and Tariq Hussain Ganai were placed at Serial No. 200 & 202, respectively. Both the private respondents challenged the seniority list dated 07.04.2021 on the grounds that only option open before the official respondents was either to file a writ petition against order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Tribunal or to file a review application before the Tribunal and once the seniority list was upheld by the Tribunal, the issuing authority had become functus officio”.
“It was also contended that fixation of cut off had nothing to do with the existence of vacancy and otherwise also, fixing of 01.01.2008 for considering vacancy position is contrary to Rules of 1979. It was also contended that Rules of 1979 do not provide for year wise preparation of select list”, the DB observed.
The petitioners objected to the writ petition by stating that the private respondents were appointed against the leave vacancies as there were no clear vacancies available on 01.01.2008, as such, seniority position was changed subsequently. It was also contended that the Rules of 1979 provide for preparation of year wise select list for the vacancies which occurred in a calendar year.
The DB further observed, “the Tribunal vide order dated 25.01.2023 upheld the contentions of the private respondents and quashed the seniority list dated 07.04.2021. The order dated 25.01.2023 has been impugned on the ground that private respondents were inducted to Time Scale of JKAS against anticipated vacancies of the year 2008 and they were required to be considered only in the year 2009, as vacancies till 01.01.2008 only were to be filled”.
“Rule 6 of Rules of 1979 envisages that the Government on every occasion on which selection has to be made for appointment to the service, shall set up a Selection Committee for making selection under Rules and further Rule 5 (3) (a) of Rules 1979 provides filling up vacancies of Time Scale posts, occurring in calendar year. The Tribunal has come to conclusion that the vacancies for the private respondents were available in the year 2008 as is evident from the minutes of meetings of Establishment Committee dated 29.05.2008 and further that the Rules of 1979 do not provide that Selection Committee will meet on a particular date(s), month(s) or year”, the DB said.
Abhinav Sharma, Senior Counsel for some of the petitioners also contended that once the private respondents have accepted order dated 13.08.2021, whereby the Selection Grade was released in favour of contesting parties and have not challenged the same, the private respondents cannot assail the seniority list dated 07.04.2021.
It needs to be noted that the grievance of the private respondents was only to the extent that they were placed lower in the seniority list dated 07.04.2021 as against their placement in the seniority list dated 26.04.2011, which was upheld by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 30.03.2021.
If the seniority list dated 07.04.2021 is quashed to the extent of private respondents, then as a natural consequence, the seniority list dated 26.04.2011 except to the extent of placing 49 members, adjusted against training and leave vacancies, at the bottom, would govern the seniority. Therefore, this contention of the petitioners is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the DB further said.
“We do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, so as to warrant any interference at the end of this court”, the DB added.
