Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Pawan Kumar vs School Education Department on 18 December, 2025
:: 1 :: TA 7940/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 7940/2021
Reserved on: - 22.07.2025
Pronounced on: - 18.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Pawan Kumar; aged 40 Years
S/o Sh. Dhanraj Sharma
R/o Ward No.06, Nai Basti,
Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Nitin Bhasin)
VERSUS
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to
Government, School Education Department, J&K Government.
Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
2) Director, School Education Department, Muthi, Jammu.
3) Chief Education Officer, Jammu.
...Respondents
(Advocate: - Mr. Sudesh Magotra, AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 7940/2021
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WPC 2179/2016 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.7940/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the Government Order No. 60-Edu of 2016 dated 23.02.2016;
b) 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 20.05.2013 passed in SWP No. 542 of 2008 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;
c) 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 petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 3 :: TA 7940/2021
a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 2179/2016, which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to this Tribunal and was registered as TA No. 7940/2021. The applicant, Pawan Kumar, seeks quashment of Government Order No. 60-Edu of 2016 dated 23.02.2016, whereby his claim for appointment to a Class-IV post in the School Education Department was rejected, and further seeks a direction for his appointment in terms of earlier judgments of the High Court.
b) The genesis of the dispute traces back to Government Order No. 1706-GAD of 1997 dated 11.11.1997, whereby recruitment to Class-IV posts was to be made by the concerned Head of the Department. In pursuance thereof, the Director School Education, Jammu issued Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 1998 dated 21.04.1998 inviting applications for Class-IV posts in various districts of Jammu Division. The applicant applied pursuant to the said advertisement and participated in the interview process conducted by district-level committees.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: TA 7940/2021
c) Subsequently, it came to light that several Chief Education
Officers had issued appointment orders unauthorisedly and in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Consequently, the Director School Education, Jammu vide order dated 28.06.1999 cancelled such appointments. Although the cancellation was initially kept in abeyance, upon further examination the Government withdrew the abeyance and upheld the cancellation vide Government Order No. 309-Edu of 2000 dated 24.04.2000.
d) The said action led to extensive litigation. A batch of writ petitions was decided by the High Court in Satya Devi & Ors. v. State of J&K on 23.05.2000, directing the State to redraw the merit list. Instead of redrawing the merit list, the Department re-advertised the posts in the year 2000, to which the applicant again applied, but the process was never taken to its logical conclusion.
e) Thereafter, by Government Order No. 556-Edu of 2002 dated 11.04.2002, 417 ousted candidates were engaged on consolidated wages, and by Government Order No. 383-Edu of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 7940/2021 2003 dated 04.04.2003 they were regularised. This policy decision again became the subject matter of litigation culminating in the judgment dated 31.12.2007 in Adil Akhter Shah & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., wherein the High Court directed the Government to consider similarly situated petitioners on parity with those already appointed.
f) The said judgment was challenged by the State in LPASW No. 49 of 2008. The Division Bench, by judgment dated 30.07.2009, held that it must be deemed that 417 posts continued to be available and that all writ petitioners covered by the controversy could be accommodated. The Division Bench further directed completion of the exercise within six months.
g) The applicant was one of the petitioners in SWP No. 542 of 2008, which was pending when the Division Bench judgment dated 30.07.2009 was delivered. The said writ petition was disposed of on 20.05.2013 with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's case in the light of the judgments in Adil Akhter Shah and LPASW No. 49 of 2008.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 6 :: TA 7940/2021
h) Despite repeated directions and contempt proceedings, the
respondents rejected the applicant's claim vide Government Order No. 661-Edu of 2013 dated 02.07.2013 and again vide Government Order No. 60-Edu of 2016 dated 23.02.2016, primarily on the ground that the applicant's writ petition was not clubbed with the lead case and that he was not selected by any recruitment agency. Aggrieved by the latter order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents, while opposing the Transfer Application, have raised preliminary objections contending that the applicant has no enforceable legal or statutory right to seek appointment to a Class-IV post and that no cause of action survives in his favour.
It is asserted that the application is misconceived, lacks merit, and deserves dismissal at the threshold.
b) On facts, the respondents submit that the applicant's writ petition (SWP No. 542 of 2008) was filed much after the judgment dated 31.12.2007 in Adil Akhter Shah & Ors. and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 7940/2021 was never part of the batch of clubbed petitions decided therein. Consequently, according to the respondents, the applicant does not fall within the zone of consideration contemplated by the Division Bench judgment dated 30.07.2009.
c) It is further pleaded that the recruitment process initiated in 1998-2000 stood exhausted long ago and that no vacancy pertaining to the said selection process is available as on date. Any appointment at this stage would amount to bypassing the recruitment rules presently in force.
d) The respondents rely upon subsequent statutory developments, including the Jammu and Kashmir School Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008 and SRO-404 dated 15.09.2018, contending that Class-IV posts are now required to be filled through a prescribed selection mechanism, including written examination conducted by the Services Selection Board, and the applicant does not satisfy the said criteria.
e) The respondents also place reliance on the judgment dated 26.07.2018 in Rekha Devi & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 7940/2021 wherein it was held that the benefit of the Division Bench judgment in LPASW No. 49 of 2008 was confined to those petitioners whose writ petitions were either pending or disposed of within the scope indicated therein.
f) It is, therefore, contended that the impugned Government Order No. 60-Edu of 2016 dated 23.02.2016 is legal, valid, and in conformity with the applicable rules and judicial precedents, and that the applicant is not entitled to any relief as claimed.
g) On the aforesaid grounds, the respondents pray for dismissal of the Transfer Application with costs.
5. In the rejoinder to the reply statement, the petitioner has averred as follows: -
a) The applicant has carefully gone through the reply filed by the respondents and denies all averments made therein which are contrary to the record and the settled position of law. The respondents have attempted to justify the impugned Government Order dated 23.02.2016 by reiterating grounds which have already been examined, rejected, and disapproved by the Hon'ble High Court earlier. The reply, therefore, is HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 7940/2021 nothing but an afterthought and an attempt to perpetuate an illegality already noticed by the Court.
b) The principal stand of the respondents that the applicant is not entitled to consideration merely because his writ petition was not clubbed with the batch of cases decided under the lead case Adil Akhter Shah & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. is wholly misconceived and untenable. The applicant submits that the determinative factor, as laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench in LPASW No. 49 of 2008 decided on 30.07.2009, is not whether a writ petition was formally clubbed, but whether it was pending or had been disposed of when the Division Bench rendered its judgment.
c) It is an admitted position that on the date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench, i.e., 30.07.2009, the applicant's writ petition bearing SWP No. 542 of 2008 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Consequently, the applicant squarely fell within the zone of consideration contemplated by the Division Bench judgment, which held that 417 posts must be deemed to HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 7940/2021 be available and that all such writ petitioners could be accommodated, subject to eligibility.
d) The stand now taken by the respondents is directly contrary to the judgment dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Rekha Devi & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. (SWP No. 433 of 2008), wherein the Court categorically held that petitioners whose writ petitions were pending on 30.07.2009 were entitled to consideration under the Division Bench judgment. The applicant's case is fully covered by the said judgment, yet the respondents have chosen to ignore it altogether.
e) The plea of the respondents that no vacancies are available is equally unsustainable. The Hon'ble Division Bench, after taking into account the entire factual background, clearly held that by virtue of policy decisions and regularisation orders, 417 posts must be deemed to be available, and that the number of writ petitioners was less than the said number. In fact, even as per the respondents' own record, only a limited number of candidates have been appointed pursuant to Government Orders HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 7940/2021 dated 13.05.2010 and 04.09.2012, leaving several posts still unfilled. The plea of non-availability of posts is, therefore, factually incorrect and legally impermissible.
f) The reliance placed by the respondents on subsequent recruitment rules and SROs is wholly misplaced. The applicant is not seeking appointment under any fresh recruitment process or under the rules notified in 2008 or thereafter. His claim flows directly from judicial directions issued in relation to the selection process initiated in 1998-2000 and the consequences flowing from the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court. Subsequent statutory changes cannot be used to defeat vested and crystallised rights flowing from binding judicial pronouncements.
g) The respondents have further failed to explain as to how several similarly situated candidates, whose writ petitions were neither clubbed with Adil Akhter Shah nor decided along with the lead batch, were nevertheless considered and appointed pursuant to individual court orders. The selective denial of the same benefit HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 7940/2021 to the applicant amounts to hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
h) The impugned Government Order dated 23.02.2016 is nothing but a reiteration of the earlier rejection order dated 02.07.2013, which had already been held by the Hon'ble High Court to be non-compliant with its directions. The respondents have failed to apply their mind to the specific directions issued by the Court while disposing of SWP No. 542 of 2008 on 20.05.2013. The impugned order, therefore, is a non-speaking order, suffers from arbitrariness, and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
i) The applicant submits that he has been litigating for more than two decades solely on account of the respondents' failure to implement binding judgments in a fair and uniform manner. The denial of relief to the applicant, despite repeated judicial interventions, amounts to perpetuation of injustice and undermines the rule of law.
j) In view of the above, the applicant reiterates the averments made in the Original Application and prays that the Transfer HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 7940/2021 Application be allowed, the impugned Government Order dated 23.02.2016 be quashed, and the respondents be directed to consider and appoint the applicant against an available Class-IV post in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court, with all consequential benefits.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. The present Transfer Application has its genesis in a prolonged litigation spanning more than two decades, arising out of the recruitment process initiated for Class-IV posts in the School Education Department pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 01 of 1998 dated 21.04.1998. The applicant, Pawan Kumar, had duly responded to the said advertisement, participated in the selection process, and thereafter remained embroiled in the cascading consequences of illegal appointments, cancellation orders, policy decisions, and repeated rounds of litigation before the Hon'ble High Court.
8. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that after unauthorised appointments were made by certain Chief Education Officers, the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 7940/2021 Director School Education, Jammu cancelled such appointments vide order dated 28.06.1999, which cancellation was ultimately upheld by the Government vide Government Order No. 309-Edu of 2000 dated 24.04.2000. A batch of writ petitions challenging the said action culminated in the judgment dated 23.05.2000 in Satya Devi & Ors., wherein the Hon'ble High Court directed redrawing of the merit list. Instead of redrawing the merit list, the respondents re-advertised the posts in the year 2000, but failed to conclude the process.
9. Thereafter, by a series of executive orders beginning with Government Order No. 556-Edu of 2002 dated 11.04.2002 and followed by Government Order No. 383-Edu of 2003 dated 04.04.2003, as many as 417 ousted candidates were engaged and regularised. These orders again became subject matter of litigation, leading to the judgment dated 31.12.2007 in Adil Akhter Shah & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., which was partially modified by the Division Bench in LPASW No. 49 of 2008 decided on 30.07.2009. The Division Bench authoritatively held that, for all practical purposes, 417 posts must be deemed to be available and that all writ petitioners falling within the scope of the controversy could be accommodated, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 7940/2021 subject to eligibility, and directed completion of the exercise within six months.
10. It is not in dispute that the applicant was a petitioner in SWP No. 542 of 2008, which was pending on the date of the Division Bench judgment dated 30.07.2009. The said writ petition was disposed of on 20.05.2013 on the basis of a categorical "no objection" by the respondents, with a specific direction to consider the applicant's case in the light of the judgments in Adil Akhter Shah and LPASW No. 49 of 2008. Despite such directions, the respondents rejected the applicant's claim vide Government Orders dated 02.07.2013 and 23.02.2016, compelling the applicant to initiate contempt proceedings and, eventually, the present Transfer Application.
11. The principal ground adopted by the respondents to deny relief is that the applicant's writ petition was not clubbed with the lead case of Adil Akhter Shah. This reasoning cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The Division Bench in LPASW No. 49 of 2008 never confined the benefit only to formally clubbed writ petitions; rather, it extended the benefit to writ petitioners covered by the controversy, particularly those whose petitions were pending or had been disposed of when the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: TA 7940/2021 judgment was rendered. This legal position has been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in Rekha Devi & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. decided on 26.07.2018, wherein it was explicitly held that petitioners whose writ petitions were pending on 30.07.2009 were entitled to consideration under the Division Bench judgment. The applicant squarely falls within this category.
12. The plea of non-availability of vacancies is equally untenable. The Division Bench, after analysing the entire factual and legal background, conclusively held that 417 posts must be deemed to be available. The record further reveals that appointments were made only in respect of a limited number of candidates pursuant to Government Orders dated 13.05.2010 and 04.09.2012, leaving a substantial number of posts unfilled. The respondents cannot now resile from a judicially declared position by raising a plea which stands foreclosed by binding precedent.
13. The reliance placed by the respondents on subsequent recruitment rules and later SROs is also misplaced. The applicant is not claiming appointment under any fresh recruitment process. His claim flows directly from judicial directions issued in relation to the 1998-2000 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: TA 7940/2021 selection process and the consequences of illegal appointments and subsequent policy decisions. Settled rights flowing from binding judicial pronouncements cannot be defeated by later statutory changes, particularly when the respondents themselves have implemented those judgments in favour of similarly situated candidates.
14. It is also evident that the impugned Government Order No. 60-Edu of 2016 dated 23.02.2016 is a verbatim reiteration of the earlier rejection order dated 02.07.2013, which had already been found non-compliant by the Hon'ble High Court in contempt proceedings. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind, arbitrariness, and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by treating the applicant unequally vis-à-vis similarly situated persons who have already been granted appointment.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal has no hesitation in holding that the impugned Government Order No. 60-Edu of 2016 dated 23.02.2016 cannot be sustained in law.
16. Accordingly, the Transfer Application is allowed. Government Order No. 60-Edu of 2016 dated 23.02.2016 is quashed. The respondents are HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: TA 7940/2021 directed to consider and appoint the applicant against an available Class-IV post in the School Education Department in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court in Adil Akhter Shah & Ors. and LPASW No. 49 of 2008, as further clarified in Rekha Devi & Ors., subject to the applicant fulfilling eligibility conditions as on 30.07.2009.
17. The appointment shall be issued within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant shall be entitled to notional seniority and notional fixation from the date similarly situated persons were appointed; however, actual monetary benefits shall accrue prospectively from the date of issuance of the appointment order, in order to balance equities and avoid unsettling settled positions.
No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member Judicial Member /harshit/ HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV