Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Rakesh Sharma vs Tourism on 9 April, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024
Reserved on: - 13.11.2025
Pronounced on: - 09.04.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. TA/144/2024
1. Rakesh Sharma, Aged 51 years Son of Late Sh. J.N. Sharma, R/o
309, Master Lane, Patta Bohri, Jammu.
2. Bhadur Singh, Aged 55 years Son of Rasil Singh, R/o Near
Durga Foundation School, Gurah Bakshi Nagar, Jammu.
3. Jagdish Raj, Aged 58 years Son of Kaka Ram, R/o Ward no.60
Neel Sheel Vihar, Paloura Jammu.
4. Suraj Singh, Aged 52 years Son of Shri Krishan Singh, R/o D-12,
Lane no. 3 Tawi Vihar Colony, Sidhra, Jammu
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Adv)
Versus
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Commissioner / Secretary,
Tourism and Culture, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024
2. Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir Academy of Art
Culture & Languages, Abhinav Theatre, Jammu.
3. University of Jammu Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road, Jammu Through
its Registrar.
4. Vice Chancellor University of Jammu Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road,
Jammu
5. Principal, Institute of Music & Fine Arts, Poonch House Talab
Tillo, Jammu.
6. Sunil Raina, Sr. Instructor, Institute of Music & Fine Arts,
University of Jammu, Jammu.
7. Sukhjit Singh, Instructor, Institute of Music & Fine Arts,
University of Jammu, Jammu.
8. Smt. Milan Sharma, Instructor, Institute of Music & Fine Arts,
University of Jammu, Jammu.
...Respondent
(Advocate:- Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld. D.A.G., Mr. Vinod Bakshi
(Pvt.Resp.))
2. TA/137/2024
1. Rakesh Sharma, Aged 51 years Son of Late Sh. J.N. Sharma, R/o
309, Master Lane, Patta Bohri, Jammu.
2. Bhadur Singh, Aged 55 years Son of Rasil Singh, R/o Near Durga
Foundation School, Gurah Bakshi Nagar, Jammu.
3. Jagdish Raj, Aged 58 years Son of Kaka Ram, R/o Ward no.60
Neel Sheel Vihar, Paloura Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024
4. Suraj Singh, Aged 52 years Son of Shri Krishan Singh, R/o D-12,
Lane no. 3 Tawi Vihar Colony, Sidhra, Jammu
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Adv)
Versus
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Commissioner / Secretary,
Tourism and Culture, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
2. Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir Academy of Art
Culture & Languages, Abhinav Theatre, Jammu.
3. University of Jammu Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road, Jammu Through
its Registrar.
4. Vice Chancellor University of Jammu Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road,
Jammu
5. Principal, Institute of Music & Fine Arts, Poonch House Talab
Tillo, Jammu.
6. Ms. Priya Dutta D/o Sh. S.K. Dutta, Presently serving Instructor
Dance, Institute of Music & Fine Arts, University Of Jammu,
Poonch House Talab Tillo, Jammu
...Respondent
(Advocate:- Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld. D.A.G., Mr. Vinod Bakshi
(Pvt.Resp.))
3. TA/145/2024
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024
1. Rakesh Sharma, Aged 52 years Son of Late Sh. J.N. Sharma,
R/o 309, Master Lane, Patta Bohri, Jammu.
2. Bhadur Singh, Aged 56 years Son of Rasil Singh, R/o Near
Durga Foundation School, Gurah Bakshi Nagar, Jammu.
3. Jagdish Raj, Aged 59 years Son of Kaka Ram, R/o Ward no.60
Neel Sheel Vihar, Paloura Jammu.
4. Suraj Singh, Aged 53 years Son of Shri Krishan Singh, R/o D-
12, Lane no. 3 Tawi Vihar Colony, Sidhra, Jammu
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Adv)
Versus
1. Dr. Meenakshi Kilam, Registrar University of Jammu Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar Road, Jammu
2. Prof. R.D. Sharma, Vice Chancellor University of Jammu Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar Road, Jammu
3. Prof. Poonam Choudhary, Principal, Institute of Music & Fine
Arts, Poonch House Talab Tillo, Jammu.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld. D.A.G., Mr. Vinod Bakshi
(Pvt.Resp.))
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The SWP No.239/2018 & 1661/2017 & CP(SWP) 225/2018 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.144/2024 & 137/2024 & TA/145/2024 respectively by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
1. TA/144/2024
a) "An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing order issued by respondent по. 3 under endorsement no. Estab/17/7440-47 dated 14.08.2017 whereby respondent no. 6 has been illegally and arbitrarily confirmed as Sr. Instructor w.e.f. 21.7.2010 in the pay scale of Rs.9000-14100 to the complete detriment to the rights and seniority of the petitioners.
b) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to promote the respondents 7 and 8 to the post of Sr. Instructor being far junior to the petitioners no. 2 and 4 till the petitioners are considered and promoted to the next higher posts.
c) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper.
2. TA/137/2024 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 a. An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing order issued by respondent no. 3 under endorsement no. Estab/17/30771-81 dated 22.03.2017 whereby respondent no. 6 has been illegally and arbitrarily confirmed as Sr. Instructor w.e.f. 19.7.2010 in the pay scale of Rs.9000-14100 to the complete detriment to the rights and seniority of the petitioners 1, 2 and 4. b. An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioners substantively to the next higher post of Sr. Instructors and grant them all consequential retrospective benefits including arrears of regularly pay scale, allowances, seniority and further promotions. c. An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to remove disparity with respect to promotion of the petitioners to the next higher posts by determining their final seniority in accordance with rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1956 and grant them all promotional benefits to which the petitioners are otherwise legally entitled to. d. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper. TA 145/2024 It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent for wilfully disobeying and flouting the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and punish the respondents named above to the maximum permissible term under law, so as to serve it as a deterrent for the likeminded officers, who act contemptuously and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 show deliberate and intentional disobedience and disrespect to the sacrosanct orders of the courts of law.
Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
a) These three matters arise out of a common service dispute concerning the Institute of Music and Fine Arts, Jammu, and therefore deserve to be noticed together. The applicants in all the three transferred applications are the same, namely, Rakesh Sharma, Bhadur Singh, Jagdish Raj and Suraj Singh. All of them were borne on the teaching cadre strength of the Institute of Music and Fine Arts, Jammu, which earlier functioned under the J&K Academy of Art, Culture and Languages. Their case is that pursuant to Cabinet Decision No. 9/1/2011 dated 14.01.2011, the Government issued Order No. 7-Cull of 2011 dated 25.01.2011, whereby the Institute of Music and Fine Arts, Jammu, together with its assets, liabilities and staff, came to be transferred to the University of Jammu. Under the said HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 Government order, the existing staff were to retain their pay and scale, no UGC qualification was to be insisted upon in respect of the existing staff, and the service interests of the employees were to remain protected. According to the applicants, before such transfer they had consented to become part of the University of Jammu on the understanding that their service rights, leave salary, gratuity, pensionary benefits, nomenclature and promotional avenues would remain safeguarded. After the transfer, they claim to have become employees of the University of Jammu, though according to them their service conditions continued to be governed by the recruitment framework applicable to the erstwhile Academy staff.
b) The applicants have stated that petitioner No. 1, Rakesh Sharma, possessing the qualifications of Bachelor of Library Science and Master of Fine Arts in Applied Arts, was appointed as Instructor in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3400 vide Academy Order No. 30 of 1995 dated 19.07.1995 and was thereafter substantively promoted as Senior Instructor, Applied Arts, vide HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 order dated 01.10.2013. Petitioner No. 2, Bhadur Singh, possessing the qualification of Bachelor of Music and M.A. Violin, was appointed as Instructor Violin vide Academy Order No. 18 of 1997 dated 26.03.1997, but according to him no post of Senior Instructor Violin existed and, therefore, he continued to stagnate on the same post. Petitioner No. 3, Jagdish Raj, possessing Bachelor's degree in Music and Master's degree in Tabla, was initially appointed as Tabla Accompanist/Assistant Instructor vide Academy Order No. 59 of 1982 dated 22.07.1982 and, after long service, was promoted as Instructor Tabla vide Academy Order No. 40 of 2005 dated 19.11.2005; on retirement of Shri Pushpinder Talwar, he was given charge of the post of Senior Instructor Tabla on 01.08.2011. Petitioner No. 4, Suraj Singh, possessing Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Music, was appointed as Assistant Instructor (Vocal) vide Academy Order No. 38 of 1995 dated 21.08.1995, promoted as Instructor Vocal vide Academy Order No. 12 of 2001 dated 01.03.2001, and after retirement of Smt. Sunaina Jad was entrusted with the charge of the Vocal Department with effect HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 from 31.12.2011. These service particulars form the foundation of the applicants' grievance that despite long years of service they were either stagnating in their respective streams or were functioning against higher posts without substantive promotion.
c) The applicants further rely upon the tentative seniority list of teaching cadre employees issued on 27.01.2010, wherein, according to them, their names figured at higher serial numbers as compared to the private respondents. They also rely upon the J&K Academy of Art, Culture and Languages Service Recruitment Rules, 2006 and the schedules appended thereto to contend that the next higher post for the applicants in their respective disciplines was the post of Senior Instructor and that promotion thereto was to be made on the basis of seniority and suitability after the prescribed period of service. Their case is that notwithstanding such position, the respondents adopted a policy of favoritism and conferred retrospective promotional benefits upon juniors while ignoring the cases of the applicants.
Facts in TA No. 144/2024
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 11 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024
d) TA No. 144/2024 arises out of challenge to endorsement No.
Estab/17/7440-47 dated 14.08.2017, whereby respondent No. 6, Sunil Raina, came to be confirmed as Senior Instructor, Sitar, with retrospective effect from 21.07.2010 in the pay scale of Rs. 9000-14100. The applicants plead that respondent No. 6 had initially been appointed as Assistant Instructor, Sitar, vide Academy Order No. 64 of 2002 dated 13.11.2002. It is further alleged that at the time of issuance of the said appointment order he was serving in Kendriya Vidyalaya and, after tendering resignation therefrom, actually joined the Institute only on 01.01.2003. The applicants, however, assert that respondent No. 6 in connivance with the then Principal manipulated his service record by altering the date of joining from 01.01.2003 to 01.01.2002, and on the strength of such manipulation he was granted further benefit of promotion to the post of Instructor Sitar vide Academy Order No. 59 of 2007 dated 26.06.2007. According to the applicants, before transfer of the Institute to the University, respondent No. 6 was shown placed against the post of Senior Instructor, Sitar, vide Academy Order No. 27 of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 2010 dated 17.07.2010, but such placement was only provisional, subject to clearance by DPC, approval of competent authority and subject to superior claims of in-service incumbents.
e) The applicants further state that they had raised objections against the aforesaid placement before the competent authorities and that in the tentative seniority list dated 27.01.2010 respondent No. 6 figured much below them, namely at serial No. 33, whereas the applicants were shown at serial Nos. 15, 17, 28 and 22 respectively. Their grievance is that despite their superior seniority and despite the alleged illegality surrounding the service record of respondent No. 6, the University constituted a Broad-Based Committee, and on the recommendation of the said Committee dated 26.07.2017 and approval of the Vice-Chancellor, respondent No. 6 was confirmed as Senior Instructor, Sitar, retrospectively from 21.07.2010 by order dated 14.08.2017. According to them, the said order was kept concealed and came to their knowledge only when petitioner No. 2 sought information under the Right HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 to Information Act, whereafter the impugned order was supplied vide communication dated 17.01.2018. It is also pleaded that consequential retrospective monetary benefits were released in favour of respondent No. 6 vide order dated 06.09.2017. The applicants maintain that because of such retrospective confirmation, petitioner No. 1, though already promoted as Senior Instructor in the year 2013, stood pushed down in comparative seniority, while the other applicants continued to suffer stagnation. They also averred that the official respondents were contemplating promotion of respondent Nos. 7 and 8, namely Sukhjit Singh and Milan Sharma, though they too were junior to the applicants in the teaching cadre.
Facts in TA No. 137/2024
f) TA No. 137/2024 concerns a similar challenge, but in relation to respondent No. 6 therein, namely Priya Dutta. The applicants have assailed endorsement No. Estab/17/30771-81 dated 22.03.2017, whereby Priya Dutta was confirmed as Senior HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 Instructor, Dance, with effect from 19.07.2010 in the pay scale of Rs. 9000-14100. The case of the applicants is that Priya Dutta was appointed as Instructor, Dance, vide Academy Order No. 26 of 2005 dated 17.06.2005 on the approval of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister, who was also President of the Academy. Thereafter, prior to transfer of the Institute, she was shown placed as Senior Instructor, Dance, vide Academy Order No. 27 of 2010 dated 17.07.2010. According to the applicants, this placement order too was not supported by approval of the competent authority and, like the case of Sunil Raina, was only subject to DPC clearance, approval and superior claims of other in-service candidates. The applicants claim that they objected to such placement before the authorities and that in the tentative seniority list dated 27.01.2010 Priya Dutta figured at serial No. 27, whereas the applicants figured at serial Nos. 15, 17, 28 and 22 respectively.
g) The applicants further plead that notwithstanding their higher seniority, a Broad Based Committee recommended confirmation of Priya Dutta as Senior Instructor, Dance, with HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 retrospective effect from 19.07.2010, and on the basis of its recommendation dated 24.10.2016, the University issued the impugned order dated 22.03.2017. According to them, except petitioner No. 3, all other applicants were senior to Priya Dutta in the teaching cadre, and yet petitioner No. 1, who had already been promoted as Senior Instructor, Applied Arts, in 2013, was rendered junior by grant of retrospective benefit to Priya Dutta. The applicants complain that while junior officers in their respective streams were being retrospectively confirmed, their own claims for substantive promotion to higher posts were not being considered, despite the fact that they had been discharging higher duties or had completed long service in their feeder cadres. Their stand is that the impugned order was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of their service rights, and they sought not only quashing of the said order but also directions for promotion of the applicants with consequential benefits and for determination of final seniority in accordance with Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1956.
Facts in TA No. 145/2024
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 16 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024
h) TA No. 145/2024 is a contempt petition arising out of the
interim order dated 15.07.2017 passed in the writ petition corresponding to TA No. 137/2024. The applicants pleaded that while issuing notice in the challenge to Priya Dutta's retrospective confirmation, the Hon'ble High Court had directed that her promotion to the post of Senior Instructor would remain subject to outcome of the writ petition and had further directed the official respondents to consider the cases of the applicants, who claimed to be senior to her, for promotion to the said post. It was also directed that the consideration order be enclosed with the reply to be filed by the respondents. According to the applicants, they took steps for service of the order through the Registry and the respondents were fully aware of the directions so issued. They further averred that despite such knowledge the respondents took no action in the matter, compelling them to issue legal notice dated 13.03.2018 calling upon the respondents to comply with the order of the Court. Their categorical case in the contempt petition is that no order of consideration, as directed by the Court, was passed and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 even objections were not filed within time, thereby constituting deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order dated 15.07.2017. On that basis, the applicants prayed for initiation of contempt proceedings and punishment of the respondents.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) In reply, respondent No. 2, namely the Academy/Government side, raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition. It was stated that by virtue of Government Order No. 7-Cull of 2011 dated 25.01.2011, the entire functioning and control of the Institute of Music and Fine Arts, Jammu, along with its assets, liabilities and staff, had already stood transferred to the University respondents, and therefore respondent No. 2 was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings. It was further pleaded that the writ petition suffered from delay and laches. According to respondent No. 2, after transfer of the Institute the petitioners were governed by the University side and, therefore, no cause of action survived against the Academy HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 or Government in relation to the impugned order issued by the University. It was accordingly prayed that the petition, insofar as respondent No. 2 was concerned, be dismissed.
b) On merits, the stand taken on behalf of the University side and the private respondent was that the service conditions of the parties were governed by the revised J&K Academy of Art, Culture and Languages Service Recruitment Rules, 2007, and not by the University rules as projected by the applicants. It was pleaded that under the revised rules the post of Senior Instructor, Sitar, was a promotional post to be filled from the feeder category of Instructor, Sitar, with the prescribed length of service, on the basis of seniority and suitability. Respondent No. 6, Sunil Raina, according to the reply, had been promoted in his own stream against a clear vacancy and his confirmation as Senior Instructor, Sitar, with effect from 21.07.2010 was strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, the recommendations of the Broad Based Committee and the law governing the field. It was further pleaded that the applicants belonged to altogether different disciplines, namely Applied HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 Arts, Violin, Tabla and Vocal, and therefore had no enforceable right to claim promotion against the post of Senior Instructor, Sitar. The defence specifically was that promotions were stream-specific, each stream had its own promotional avenue, and no employee could seek advancement in a stream to which he did not belong. The allegations of arbitrariness, nepotism, mala fides and violation of rights were categorically denied.
The respondents also pleaded that respondent No. 6 had already been promoted as Instructor, Sitar, vide Academy Order No. 59/2007 dated 26.06.2007 and that his subsequent confirmation in the higher post was lawful. In sum, the respondents asserted that none of the applicants figured in the seniority of Instructor, Sitar, and therefore the challenge laid by them was wholly misconceived and liable to be rejected.
c) In TA No. 137/2024, respondent No. 6, Priya Dutta, further urged that no writ would lie against an order of confirmation by which the respondent had been continued on the post of Senior Instructor, Dance, from the year 2010 in accordance with the rules. The reply proceeded on the footing that upon transfer of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 the Institute to the University, both the applicants and the private respondent became employees of the University but continued to be governed by the J&K Academy Service Recruitment Rules, 2007. It was specifically pleaded that as per the seniority position furnished by the authorities, Priya Dutta had been placed as Senior Instructor, Dance, in the year 2010, whereas the applicants were working in other disciplines, namely Applied Arts, Tabla, Violin and Vocal. Therefore, according to the respondents, the impugned order dated 22.03.2017 confirming her on the post of Senior Instructor, Dance, with effect from 19.07.2010 was perfectly legal and justified.
d) The respondents further averred that petitioner No. 1 had already been promoted as Senior Instructor, Applied Arts, vide order dated 01.10.2013 and, therefore, no real prejudice had been caused to him. It was also pleaded that the applicants had their own separate avenues of promotion in their respective streams and could not claim promotion against the post of Senior Instructor, Dance. The respondents emphasized that HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 21 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 under the revised 2007 rules, the post of Senior Instructor, Dance, was a promotional post to be filled from the feeder category in the Dance stream on the basis of seniority and suitability after the prescribed service. Priya Dutta, according to the respondents, was fully eligible for such promotion and, in fact, possessed higher qualifications, being M.A. in Kathak Dance and also a Ph.D. holder. It was further asserted that she had been working on the said post since 2010 against a clear vacancy and that the impugned order merely confirmed her service from the date from which she had been validly working as Senior Instructor, Dance. The allegation that the Broad Based Committee had been constituted to confer undue favour upon her was denied, and it was pleaded that the applicants, belonging to other branches and cadres, had no cause to challenge confirmation in the Dance stream. On these premises, dismissal of the petition was sought.
e) Respondent No. 2 in this case also took a stand similar to the one taken in TA No. 144/2024, namely that after transfer of the Institute, the Academy/Government side had no effective HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 22 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 administrative or financial control over the establishment and thus was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The petition was also alleged to suffer from delay and to be devoid of cause of action against respondent No. 2.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Since all the three transferred applications arise out of a common set of facts, involve the same applicants, concern the same Institute, and raise overlapping questions regarding promotion, seniority and consequential contempt, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The record shows that SWP No. 239/2018, SWP No. 1661/2017 and CP(SWP) No. 225/2018 were transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and came to be registered before this Tribunal as T.A. No. 144/2024, T.A. No. 137/2024 and T.A. No. 145/2024 respectively. In T.A. No. 144/2024, the applicants have challenged the order dated 14.08.2017 whereby respondent No. 6, Sunil Raina, was confirmed as Senior Instructor with effect from 21.07.2010 and have also sought restraint against promotion of respondents 7 and 8. In T.A. No. 137/2024, the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 applicants have challenged order dated 22.03.2017 whereby respondent No. 6, Priya Dutta, was confirmed as Senior Instructor with effect from 19.07.2010 and have further sought promotion and consequential benefits for themselves. In T.A. No. 145/2024, the applicants seek initiation of contempt proceedings alleging non- compliance of the interim order dated 15.07.2017 passed in the writ petition corresponding to T.A. No. 137/2024.
7. The applicants, namely Rakesh Sharma, Bhadur Singh, Jagdish Raj and Suraj Singh, were borne on the cadre strength of the Institute of Music and Fine Arts, Jammu, which was earlier under the control of the J&K Academy of Art, Culture and Languages. Their case is that pursuant to Cabinet Decision dated 14.01.2011 and Government Order No. 7-Cull of 2011 dated 25.01.2011, the Institute along with its staff, assets and liabilities stood transferred to the University of Jammu. According to them, while agreeing to such transfer they had consented on the condition that their service interests, promotional avenues, nomenclature and retiral rights would remain protected. They further plead that after the transfer, though they became employees of the University of Jammu, their service conditions HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 24 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 continued to be governed by the Recruitment Rules applicable to the Academy staff borne on the cadre of the Institute.
8. The service particulars of the applicants, as pleaded by them, are that applicant No. 1, Rakesh Sharma, possessing qualifications in Library Science and Fine Arts, was appointed as Instructor, Applied Arts, vide order dated 19.07.1995 and was later promoted as Senior Instructor, Applied Arts, vide order dated 01.10.2013. Applicant No. 2, Bhadur Singh, possessing Bachelor of Music and M.A. Violin, was appointed as Instructor Violin vide order dated 26.03.1997 and claims stagnation for want of an available promotional post in his stream. Applicant No. 3, Jagdish Raj, who was initially appointed as Tabla Accompanist/Assistant Instructor in 1982 and later promoted as Instructor Tabla in 2005, pleads that after retirement of the incumbent Senior Instructor Tabla he was given charge of that post on 01.08.2011. Applicant No. 4, Suraj Singh, appointed as Assistant Instructor (Vocal) in 1995 and promoted as Instructor Vocal in 2001, similarly pleads that upon retirement of the Senior Instructor Vocal he was entrusted with charge of the Vocal Department with effect from 31.12.2011. The common theme of the applicants' case is that despite HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 25 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 long years of service and, in some cases, discharge of higher responsibilities, they were not granted substantive promotion, while juniors were conferred retrospective promotional benefits.
9. In T.A. No. 144/2024, the specific grievance is against confirmation of respondent No. 6, Sunil Raina, as Senior Instructor, Sitar, with retrospective effect from 21.07.2010. The applicants plead that Sunil Raina was appointed as Assistant Instructor, Sitar, vide Academy Order dated 13.11.2002, that he actually joined service on 01.01.2003 after resignation from Kendriya Vidyalaya, and that he manipulated his service record by overwriting the date of joining as 01.01.2002. They further allege that on the basis of such manipulation he came to be promoted as Instructor Sitar in 2007 and was later placed against the post of Senior Instructor, Sitar, vide Academy Order dated 17.07.2010, subject to DPC clearance, approval of competent authority and subject to superior claims. Their further case is that in the tentative seniority list dated 27.01.2010 the applicants were shown at serial Nos. 15, 17, 28 and 22, whereas Sunil Raina figured at serial No. 33, and therefore his retrospective confirmation vide order dated 14.08.2017 was illegal, arbitrary and destructive of the applicants' HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 26 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 seniority and service rights. They also pleaded that retrospective monetary benefits were thereafter released in favour of Sunil Raina and that the official respondents were contemplating further promotions of respondents 7 and 8, though they too were junior to the applicants.
10. In T.A. No. 137/2024, the applicants have questioned the confirmation of respondent No. 6, Priya Dutta, as Senior Instructor, Dance, with effect from 19.07.2010 vide order dated 22.03.2017. According to them, Priya Dutta had initially been appointed as Instructor Dance in 2005 and was later shown placed against the post of Senior Instructor, Dance, vide Academy Order dated 17.07.2010, again subject to DPC clearance, approval of competent authority and superior claims. The applicants rely upon the same tentative seniority list dated 27.01.2010 to contend that Priya Dutta stood below them in seniority, being at serial No. 27, whereas the applicants were at serial Nos. 15, 17, 28 and 22. They assert that despite their superior seniority and their own long service, the University, on the recommendation of a Broad Based Committee, confirmed Priya Dutta retrospectively from 19.07.2010 and thereby caused serious prejudice HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 27 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 to the applicants, particularly applicant No. 1 who had already been promoted as Senior Instructor, Applied Arts, only in 2013. On this basis they seek quashment of the order dated 22.03.2017, substantive promotion to the next higher posts for themselves, consequential monetary benefits, and correction of seniority.
11. T.A. No. 145/2024 is in the nature of a contempt petition arising out of the interim order dated 15.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition corresponding to T.A. No. 137/2024. The applicants plead that while issuing notice, the Hon'ble High Court directed that the promotion of Priya Dutta would remain subject to the outcome of the writ petition and that the cases of the applicants, who claimed to be senior to her, be also considered for promotion, with the consideration order to be enclosed with the reply. According to the applicants, despite service of the order and subsequent legal notice dated 13.03.2018, the respondents took no steps to comply and, therefore, were liable to be proceeded against for wilful and deliberate disobedience.
12. The official respondents as well as the private respondents have contested the claim. The Academy/Government side has raised a HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 28 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 preliminary objection that after issuance of Government Order dated 25.01.2011, the Institute together with staff and control stood transferred to the University of Jammu and, therefore, the Academy ceased to have effective control over the service matters in question. The University side and the private respondents have, on merits, taken a definite stand that the applicable service conditions are governed by the J&K Academy of Art, Culture and Languages Service Recruitment Rules, 2007/revised rules and that promotion to the post of Senior Instructor is stream-specific. The defence is that respondent Sunil Raina was promoted/confirmed in the Sitar stream and respondent Priya Dutta in the Dance stream, whereas the applicants belong to different disciplines, namely Applied Arts, Violin, Tabla and Vocal. It is specifically pleaded that none of the applicants figures in the seniority as Instructor Sitar and that they are claiming promotion only on the basis of their seniority in other streams, which is different from the stream in which promotion has been made. In the objections filed on behalf of Priya Dutta, it has further been stated that applicant No. 1 already stands promoted as Senior Instructor, Applied Arts, and that the impugned order confirming Priya Dutta in the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 29 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 Dance stream is legally valid because she had been placed in that stream since 2010 and the applicants had no enforceable right against that post.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the core question is not whether the applicants are generally senior in the establishment, but whether they possessed any legally enforceable right to challenge promotions made in the specific streams of Sitar and Dance. The pleadings themselves show that applicant No. 1 belongs to Applied Arts, applicant No. 2 to Violin, applicant No. 3 to Tabla and applicant No. 4 to Vocal. On the other hand, the promotions impugned in these cases are to the posts of Senior Instructor, Sitar, and Senior Instructor, Dance. The respondents' stand, emerging from the objections, is that promotions are governed by stream-wise feeder categories. Nothing has been shown from the record to establish that all these disciplines formed one common interchangeable cadre for purposes of promotion to the posts in question. Mere placement of names in one tentative seniority list of teaching cadre employees HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 30 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 cannot, by itself, establish a right of one stream to claim promotion in another stream contrary to the recruitment pattern.
14. The law on the point is also settled that fixation of separate promotional avenues and ladders for different feeder categories is within the employer's domain, depending upon the structure and needs of the department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that "fixation of quotas or different avenues and ladders for promotion in favour of various categories of posts in feeder cadres based upon the structure and pattern of the Department is a prerogative of the employer" and that "chances of promotion are not conditions of service." It has further held that mere cadre strength cannot be the sole basis to claim parity in chances of promotion across different feeder categories.
15. Tested on the above principle, the challenge raised in T.A. No. 144/2024 and T.A. No. 137/2024 cannot succeed. So far as Sunil Raina is concerned, the applicants are not borne in the Sitar stream. So far as Priya Dutta is concerned, the applicants are not borne in the Dance stream. The applicants may legitimately feel aggrieved by stagnation in their own respective branches, but that grievance cannot HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 31 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 be converted into a right to dislodge confirmations made in another branch unless the rules unmistakably provide for a common pool or interchangeable promotional channel. No such rule has been shown. Therefore, the foundation of the applicants' claim that they were "senior" to Sunil Raina or Priya Dutta and hence entitled to supersede them in Sitar or Dance cannot be accepted.
16. Much emphasis was laid by the applicants in T.A. No. 144/2024 on the allegation that Sunil Raina tampered with his date of joining. However, this allegation, though serious, remains a disputed factual assertion raised in pleadings. In the present proceedings, and particularly when the applicants have failed to establish that they themselves belonged to the feeder category for the post of Senior Instructor, Sitar, it would not be safe to set aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2017 merely on the basis of such disputed allegation. The principal challenge itself fails for want of locus based on feeder- category entitlement. Once that is so, the ancillary allegation regarding manipulation of service record cannot by itself result in the quashment sought at the instance of persons who were not otherwise eligible claimants to the post. The same reasoning also answers the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 32 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 prayer seeking restraint against promotion of respondents 7 and 8, for the applicants cannot claim a general embargo on all promotions merely by asserting comparative seniority across distinct disciplines.
17. This Tribunal is also unable to accept the contention that retrospective confirmation of Priya Dutta or Sunil Raina necessarily infringed the applicants' rights merely because their names appeared above the private respondents in a broader tentative seniority list. Seniority has relevance only within the field of consideration prescribed by the rules. If the post of Senior Instructor, Dance, is to be filled from the Dance stream, the claim of a person from Applied Arts, Violin, Tabla or Vocal cannot be pressed into service merely by invoking a common institutional seniority. Similarly, if the post of Senior Instructor, Sitar, is to be filled from the Sitar stream, the applicants cannot seek displacement of the incumbent on the strength of service in other branches. The pleadings of the private respondents and official respondents consistently proceed on this distinction, and the applicants have not shown any statutory provision to the contrary.
18. The contention that the applicants were stagnating and that the employer ought to have provided promotional opportunities may HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 33 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024 indeed evoke sympathy, but sympathy cannot substitute a legal right. Courts and Tribunals grant relief where a statutory or constitutional infraction is established. In the present cases, the applicants have not demonstrated that the impugned confirmations were contrary to the feeder pattern governing the posts of Senior Instructor, Sitar, and Senior Instructor, Dance. Consequently, the challenge to the impugned orders dated 14.08.2017 and 22.03.2017 is liable to fail.
19. In the present matter, the contempt petition is entirely dependent on the interim order passed in the connected writ pertaining to Priya Dutta's promotion. Once the substantive claim in T.A. No. 137/2024 itself is found to be without merit, no useful purpose would be served in continuing contempt proceedings on the same factual premise. More importantly, from the material placed on record, this Tribunal is not persuaded that the ingredients of wilful and deliberate disobedience, in the strict sense required for civil contempt, stand established so as to warrant punitive action. The proper course, therefore, is to close the contempt proceedings upon disposal of the main matters.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 34 :: TA 144/2024 & 137/2024 & 145/2024
20. For all the aforesaid reasons, T.A. No. 144/2024 and T.A. No. 137/2024 are found to be devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. T.A. No. 145/2024 is also dismissed/closed, no case of wilful disobedience having been made out. However, it is clarified that dismissal of these transferred applications shall not preclude the competent respondents from considering the cases of the applicants for promotion in their own respective streams/categories, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, seniority, suitability and availability of vacancies, if and when such consideration arises. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV