Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Mohd Ashraf vs D/O Education Ut Of J & K on 5 February, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 7148/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 7148/2021
Reserved on: - 20.08.2025
Pronounced on: - 05.02.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Mohd Ashraf, age 44 years S/O Late Mir Ali R/O Birpur, Tehsil and
District Samba, State J&K.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Ashwani Kumar Banotra)
Versus
1. State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Education
Dept. Civil Secretariat, Srinagar
2. Director, School Education Jammu.
3. Chief Education Office, Samba.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Ld. AAG)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 7148/2021
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.2316/2013 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.7148/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
(i) commanding respondents to promote petitioner as Master with effect from 23.04.2013;
(ii) directing respondents to fix seniority of petitioner as Master by showing his date of promotion as 23.04.2013;
(iii) appropriate direction be issued commanding respondents to release pay scale of Master in favour of petitioner from aforesaid date; and
(iv) any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of petitioner and against respondents with costs. An affidavit in support of writ petition is enclosed.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 3 :: TA 7148/2021
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 2316/2013, originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu, which on transfer stands registered as T.A. No. 7148/2021 before this Tribunal. The applicant, Mohd. Ashraf, belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and was appointed as a Teacher in the School Education Department vide Order dated 13.03.1999 issued by the Chief Education Officer, Jammu. He is presently serving in Government Stationary Primary School, Birpur, District Samba.
b) At the time of his appointment, the applicant possessed the qualification of Graduation. Subsequently, he pursued the B.Ed.
course through regular mode after obtaining requisite leave from the competent authority. The applicant appeared in the B.Ed. examination conducted by the University of Jammu, the result whereof was declared on 21.03.2013, wherein he was shown as failed in two subjects. Aggrieved thereof, the applicant applied for re-evaluation. Upon re-evaluation, the Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 7148/2021 University of Jammu declared him as having passed all subjects vide result dated 12.06.2013.
c) In the interregnum, the Director School Education, Jammu issued Office Order dated 23.04.2013, whereby promotion of 1648 Teachers to the post of Master was ordered. It is the specific case of the applicant that several teachers belonging to Scheduled Tribe category from District Samba, who were admittedly junior to him in service, were promoted as Masters under the said order, whereas the applicant was excluded solely on account of the erroneous declaration of his B.Ed. result.
d) The applicant contends that the re-evaluation merely corrected an error committed by the University and that such correction relates back to the date of declaration of the original result. He asserts that had his result been correctly declared on 21.03.2013, he would have been eligible and considered for promotion on 23.04.2013 along with his juniors. It is further pleaded that the lapse was not attributable to the applicant and that he cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 7148/2021
e) The applicant further places reliance upon Office Order dated 27.07.2013 issued by the Director School Education, Jammu, wherein it was clarified that eligible teachers whose names had not been included in the promotion orders could submit representations for consideration. Acting upon the said liberty, the applicant submitted representations before the competent authorities seeking promotion with effect from 23.04.2013. However, no decision was taken on his representations, compelling him to approach the High Court by way of SWP No. 2316/2013.
f) The applicant also relies upon judicial precedents, including the Division Bench judgment in LPA SW No. 199/2006 and the decision reported in 2012 (III) SLJ 695, to contend that re- evaluation corrects an error and the benefit thereof must relate back to the original date. Alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the applicant seeks promotion as Master with effect from 23.04.2013 along with fixation of seniority and consequential monetary benefits. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 7148/2021
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents, in their reply, do not dispute the initial appointment of the applicant as a Teacher in the year 1999 under Scheduled Tribe category. It is stated that under the Jammu and Kashmir School Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008, the essential qualification for promotion to the post of Master is Graduation with B.Ed. The respondents submit that the applicant appeared in the B.Ed.
examination and was declared failed in two subjects on 21.03.2013 and that he was declared as passed only upon re- evaluation on 12.06.2013.
b) It is further stated that the promotion order dated 23.04.2013 was issued during the period when the applicant had not yet been declared successful in the B.Ed. examination and, therefore, he was not eligible for promotion on the said date. The respondents admit that some teachers junior to the applicant were promoted as Masters under Scheduled Tribe Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 7148/2021 category but maintain that such promotion was strictly in accordance with eligibility available on the relevant date.
c) The respondents also place on record that the applicant had approached the Hon'ble High Court and that vide interim order dated 30.10.2013, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion with effect from 23.04.2013. However, according to the respondents, the matter is still under consideration and no final decision has been taken.
d) At the same time, the respondents themselves rely upon the judgment in Veena Kumari v. State of J&K, reported in 2012 (3) SLJ 69, wherein it has been held that re-evaluation is only rectification of an error and such rectification dates back to the date of error. Despite this, the respondents submit that the applicant can only be promoted prospectively and not with retrospective effect.
e) On these premises, the respondents seek dismissal of the Transfer Application, asserting that no enforceable right accrued in favour of the applicant on 23.04.2013, as he was not declared successful in B.Ed. on that date.
Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 7148/2021
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The undisputed facts emerging from the pleadings and record are that the applicant was appointed as a Teacher on 13.03.1999 under Scheduled Tribe category and was senior to several teachers who came to be promoted as Masters vide Order dated 23.04.2013. It is also not in dispute that the applicant possessed Graduation qualification and had appeared in the B.Ed. examination conducted by the University of Jammu, the result whereof was initially declared on 21.03.2013 showing him as failed in two subjects. Upon re- evaluation, the University declared him as having passed all subjects on 12.06.2013.
7. The core issue that arises for determination is whether the applicant can be denied promotion to the post of Master with effect from 23.04.2013 merely because the re-evaluation result was declared subsequent to the date of promotion order, despite the fact that the re- evaluation corrected an error committed by the University and the applicant was otherwise eligible and senior. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 7148/2021
8. The legal position on this issue is no longer res integra. The respondents themselves have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Veena Kumari v. State of J&K, reported in 2012 (3) SLJ 69, wherein it has been categorically held that re-evaluation is only a rectification of an error and such rectification dates back to the date of the original declaration of result. Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench in LPA SW No. 199/2006, wherein it was observed that a candidate should not be made to suffer for the lapse of the University in erroneously evaluating the answer scripts.
9. Applying the aforesaid settled principle to the facts of the present case, it is evident that once the applicant was declared as having passed the B.Ed. examination upon re-evaluation, the effect thereof must relate back to 21.03.2013, i.e., the date on which the original result was declared. Consequently, the applicant must be deemed to have possessed the requisite qualification on the date when promotion order dated 23.04.2013 was issued.
10. The plea of the respondents that the applicant can only be promoted prospectively is wholly untenable and runs contrary to the very judgments relied upon by them. Accepting such a plea would amount Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 7148/2021 to perpetuating an illegality and allowing juniors to steal a march over a senior employee for no fault attributable to him. The record further reveals that the Hon'ble High Court, while admitting the writ petition, had already directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion with effect from 23.04.2013. The said order has admittedly not been complied with till date.
11. It is also relevant to note that the applicant had obtained requisite leave and post facto permission for pursuing the B.Ed. course and his qualification stood duly recorded in the service record. No allegation of misconduct, misrepresentation or suppression has been levelled against him. The denial of promotion is thus solely founded on an erroneous academic evaluation subsequently rectified by the University itself.
12. Such denial of promotion, despite availability of vacancies and promotion of juniors, clearly violates the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Seniority once earned cannot be defeated by an error committed by a third party, more so when the employee has acted bonafide and with due diligence. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 7148/2021
13. This Tribunal, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the applicant was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Master on 23.04.2013 and that the respondents acted arbitrarily in denying him the said benefit.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion and settled legal position, the Transfer Application is allowed. The action of the respondents in denying promotion to the applicant to the post of Master with effect from 23.04.2013 is held to be illegal and unsustainable.
15. The respondents are directed to:
a) Promote the applicant to the post of Master with effect from 23.04.2013, i.e., the date on which his juniors were promoted;
b) Fix the seniority of the applicant in the cadre of Masters by treating his date of promotion as 23.04.2013, placing him above all juniors promoted under the same order;
c) Grant all consequential service benefits, including notional fixation of pay and seniority from 23.04.2013;
d) Release actual monetary benefits from the date the applicant is found entitled under rules, keeping in view Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 7148/2021 principles of "no work no pay" only to the extent applicable and without affecting his seniority and pensionary benefits.
16. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV