Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Surinder Sharma vs D/O Revenue on 26 December, 2025
:: 1 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 2491/2020
&
Transfer Application No. 230/2022
Reserved on: - 15.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 26.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
TA 2491/2020:
1. Surinder Sharma, Age 49 years S/O Sh. Durga Lal Sharma R/O Mohalla
Rajpurohita, Tehsil and Distt. Kishtwar.
2. Vinod Singh Parihar, Age 45 years S/O Sh. Saroop Singh Parihar R/O
Village Bera Bhata (Matta) Tehsil and Distt. Kishtwar.
3. Susheel Kumar, Age 42 years S/O Sh. Jagdish Raj Sharma R/O Village
Galigarh, Sarthal, Tehsil and Distt. Kishtwar.
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. Prajwal Parihar)
Versus
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022
1. State of Jammu & Kashmir Through Commissioner/secretary to
Government Revenue Department. J & K Government, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu.
2. Financial Commissioner Revenue J&K Government, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu.
3. J&K Service Selection Board Through its secretary Sehkari Bhawan
Railhead Complex Jammu
....Respondents
(Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG)
TA 230/2022:
1. Sujad Hussain Age 47 years, S/o Abdul Majid, R/o Lowang, Tehsil
Bani, District Kathua.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Adv)
Versus
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022
1. State of Jammu & Kashmir Through Commissioner/secretary to
Government Revenue Department. J & K Government, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu.
2. Financial Commissioner Revenue J&K Government, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu.
3. J&K Service Selection Board Through its secretary Sehkari Bhawan
Railhead Complex Jammu
4. Hamidullah Dar S/O Sh Abdul Khaliq Dar R/o village Muniwar
Anantnag(Kashmir)
5. Ali Mohd Bhat S/O Mohd Akbar Bhat R/o Muniwar, Anantnag
(Kashmir)
6. Imtiaz Ahmad Dar S/O Sh Ghulan Hassan Dar R/o Sirhama Bijbehara
(Kashmir)
7. Rayees Ahmad Parray S/O Ghulam Nabi Parray R/o Chursoo
Pulwama (Kashmir)
8. Mohd Imran Dar S/O Ghulam Ahmad Dar R/o Sirhama Bijbehara
(Kashmir);
9. Mushtaq Ahmad Dar S/O Sh Abdul Sattar Dar R/o Ashamji Kulgam
(Kashmir)
....Respondents
(Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG)
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 4 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP Nos.3025/2019 & 667/2017 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.2491/2020 & 230/2022 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) Writ of Certiorari to quash Govt. Order No.01 Rev of 2017 dated 02-01-2017 issued by Commissioner Secretary to Govt.
Revenue Department, J&K whereby the claim of the petitioners has been wrongly rejected for appointment for the post of Naib- Tehsildar;
b) Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to select and appoint the petitioners for the post of Naib-Tehsildar w.e.f. 08- 09-2009 with all consequential benefits in the light of judgment passed in SWP NO. 487/2009 titled Hamid Ullah Dar & Ors Vs State of J&K & Ors dated 31-12-2014 and Inamul Haq Hajan Vs State & Ors dated 19th August 2015 as well as the judgment dated 07-11- 2016 passed in SWP No. 2094 /2009 and connected petitions;
c) Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to accord consideration to the representation of the petitioner made from time to time pursuant to which the committee was framed for reconsideration / review of the impugned order and pass final order on the said representation made by the petitioners within HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 5 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 the time frame as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case;
d) Certiorari, Seeking to quash Government Order No. 164- Rev of 2016 dated 10.11.2016, whereby and whereunder, the private respondents, who are less meritorious than the petitioner have been appointed as Naib Tehsildar in Revenue department in an arbitrary manner in violation of rules and the petitioner ignored.
e) Mandamus, commanding and directing the official respondent No. 3, to select the petitioner as Naib Tehsildar in Revenue Department, pursuant to Advertisement Notice Nos. No. 01 of 2002 dated 26.04.2002 and Notification No. 04 of 2008 dated 26.05.2008, over and above the private respondents, and recommend the name of the petitioner to respondent No. 1, for appointment, further with direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to consider the appointment of the petitioner as Naib Tehsildar in Revenue Department against any of the post which is still lying vacant with respondent No. 1, w.e.f the date respondent Nos. 4 to 10 have been so appointed.
3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
a) The petitioners are a qualified and eligible candidate who passed Matriculation with Urdu, thereafter completed graduation and law, qualified the Patwar Training Course and subsequently cleared the Revenue (Executive) Service Departmental Examination conducted by the J&K Public Service Commission, and belongs to the RBA category;
HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 6 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 pursuant to the notifications issued by the respondent-SSB for selection to the post of Naib Tehsildar, the petitioner applied and was shortlisted but was erroneously considered under the Open Merit category instead of the reserved category, resulting in his non-selection; during the same selection process, litigation ensued regarding appointment of non-Urdu-knowing candidates and defects in the written examination, leading to judgments of the Hon'ble High Court directing reservation of posts, re-evaluation of the selection and redrawing of the merit list, followed by contempt proceedings, yet despite these judicial directions and subsequent appointments made thereunder, the petitioner, though similarly situated and more meritorious, was ignored and excluded from appointment vide order dated 10.11.2016, giving rise to the present challenge.
b) The petitioners are highly qualified candidates possessing excellent academic records and were fully eligible in all respects for appointment to the post of Naib Tehsildar. Accordingly, they applied pursuant to Notification No. 01 of 2002 dated 26.04.2002 and Advertisement Notice No. 09 of HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 7 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 2005 dated 14.12.2005, whereby 52 and 39 posts of Naib Tehsildar, respectively, were advertised by the respondent Board.
c) Further despite issuance of Notification dated 26.04.2002, the respondent Board failed to conclude the selection process for nearly three years and instead issued another Advertisement Notice dated 14.12.2005. Even thereafter, the respondent Board did not complete the selection process and repeatedly postponed the written examination without assigning any valid or justifiable reasons.
d) The posts in question had already been duly referred by the indenting department; however, the respondent Board delayed the written examination for several years, and no explanation whatsoever was ever furnished for such inordinate delay in finalizing the selection process pursuant to the advertisements of 2002 and 2005.
e) The respondent Board issued a notification dated 10.01.2008, notifying that the written examination for the post of Naib Tehsildar would be conducted on 20.04.2008, along with the HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 8 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 prescribed syllabus. However, without conducting the examination on the notified date, the respondent Board issued yet another Advertisement Notice No. 04 of 2008 dated 26.05.2008, advertising 20 additional posts of Naib Tehsildar, while clarifying that candidates who had applied pursuant to the earlier advertisements of 2002 and 2005 need not apply afresh.
f) Ultimately, the written examination was conducted in May 2009, in which the petitioners appeared and performed exceptionally well. The petitioners were expecting scores above 85 marks; however, they were not shortlisted for interview, whereas candidates securing lesser marks were called, giving rise to serious apprehension regarding manipulation of answer keys. Consequently, the petitioners sought re-evaluation of their answer sheets.
g) Upon scrutiny of the question paper, it came to light that more than 14 questions contained either no correct option or multiple correct options, rendering such questions patently defective and invalid, thereby vitiating the entire evaluation process.
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 9 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022
h) It is further submitted that the respondent Board published the result of the written examination in the Daily Excelsior dated 21.07.2009, pursuant to Advertisement Notices of 2002, 2005, and 2008, and called 783 candidates for interview. The petitioners were excluded from the interview list without lawful justification.
i) It is further argued that the respondent Board issued the aforesaid result without bifurcating candidates advertisement- wise and applied a uniform cut-off for all three advertisement notices, in complete violation of Rule 13 of SRO 194 of 1992, despite issuing a clarificatory note in the notification dated 21.07.2009.
j) The petitioners thereafter continued to pursue their grievance by filing writ petitions, including SWP No. 2094/2009 (Sanjeev Chand vs State & Ors), SWP No. 1309/2015 (Arun Gupta & Anr vs State of J&K & Ors), and SWP No. 2741/2015 (Krishan Raj Kant vs State of J&K & Ors), challenging the selection process on the ground of defective question papers and erroneous evaluation.
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 10 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022
k) Similarly situated candidates filed SWP No. 487/2009 (Hamid Ullah Dar & Ors vs State & Ors) before the Srinagar Bench of this Hon'ble Court, raising identical grounds pertaining to wrong questions in the written examination. The Srinagar Bench of this Hon'ble Court, vide judgment dated 30.12.2014, held that 23 questions were defective and directed the respondent authorities to delete the said questions and re- evaluate the merit of the candidates and consider them against available vacancies and the petitioners' writ petitions were thereafter decided by the Jammu Wing of this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 07.11.2016, directing the respondents to extend similar benefits to the petitioners as granted in the judgment dated 30.12.2014.
l) Further it is submitted that the respondent authorities implemented the Srinagar Bench judgment by issuing Order No. 164-Rev of 2016 dated 10.11.2016, appointing the beneficiaries of SWP No. 487/2009 to the post of Naib Tehsildar.
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 11 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022
m) Thereafter the petitioners, upon receipt of the favorable judgment dated 07.11.2016, submitted a compliance notice dated 30.11.2016 requesting extension of identical benefits; however, the respondents arbitrarily rejected the petitioners' claim vide Government Order No. 01-Rev of 2017 dated 02.01.2017, on the untenable ground that the petitioners were not similarly situated and the petitioners sought review of the said rejection, pursuant to which a high-level committee comprising senior ministers and officers was constituted. The committee, after deliberations, categorically concluded that the petitioners were entitled to the same benefits as those granted to the candidates of the Srinagar Bench.
n) But despite such findings, the respondent authorities failed to implement the judgments in favour of the petitioners, compelling them to challenge the impugned Government Order No. 01-Rev of 2017 dated 02.01.2017, which is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 12 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) Per contra the learned counsels for respondents vehemently denied the contention of applicants and submitted that the Government, during the years 2002, 2005 and 2008, referred a total of 111 posts of Naib Tehsildars to the Service Selection Board.
b) In pursuance thereof, the Service Selection Board issued Advertisement Notices dated 26.02.2002, 14.12.2005 and 26.05.2008, advertising all the referred posts. The written examination for the said posts was conducted on 22.02.2009, and the result thereof was declared vide notification dated 21.07.2009. Candidates who qualified the written examination were subsequently called for interview, and the final merit of the selected candidates was determined notification-wise by the Service Selection Board in accordance with the rules governing the selection process.
c) That subsequent to the completion of the selection process, two distinct sets of writ petitions came to be filed before the HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 13 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 Hon'ble Court. In the first batch of writ petitions, the validity of the question paper prepared by the Service Selection Board was challenged. The Hon'ble Court, vide judgment dated 31.12.2014 passed in SWP No. 487/2009, returned its findings on the said challenge. In the second batch of writ petitions, the grievance raised was with regard to the selection and appointment of certain candidates who allegedly did not possess the requisite qualification of Urdu at the matriculation level. In those writ petitions, the Hon'ble Court, vide judgment dated 18.09.2015, directed the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioners therein against the posts reserved in the said writ petitions.
d) Both the aforesaid judgments were duly examined, considered and implemented by the Government strictly in terms of the directions contained therein, vide Government Order No. 84- Rev of 2016 dated 30.06.2016 (Inam-ul-Haq Hajam & Ors. versus State of J&K & Ors.) and Government Order No. 164- Rev of 2016 dated 10.11.2016 (Hamid-ullah Dar & Ors. versus State of J&K & Ors.) and the aforesaid judgments are HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 14 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 judgments in personam and not judgments in rem, and therefore, the benefit thereof is confined only to the petitioners who were parties to the said writ petitions. No other person, who was not a petitioner in the said cases, has any legal right or entitlement to seek consideration or extension of benefits on the basis of the said judgments.
e) The present petitioner, along with some other similarly situated persons, appears to have filed the instant writ petition merely on the basis of the implementation of the aforesaid judgments, seeking parity and similar treatment. However, since the said judgments are not applicable to non-petitioners, the present petitioner cannot claim any right or benefit therefrom. Moreover, the present petition has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about seven years, which disentitles the petitioner to any discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction and in view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the petitioner has no legal, vested or enforceable right to seek consideration, and as such, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 15 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The learned counsel for the applicants, during the course of arguments, has raised an additional and significant aspect of the matter by placing reliance on the judgment and order dated 31.12.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 487/2009 titled Hamidullah Dar and Others v. State of J&K and Others. By virtue of the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court categorically directed the respondent Board to delete 23 questions from the question paper and thereafter to reassess and re-evaluate the performance of the petitioners therein as well as the selected candidates (respondents No. 4 to 110), treating the question paper as consisting of 97 questions only. The respondent Board was further directed to prepare a category-wise merit list, redraw the select list, and recommend candidates strictly on the basis of merit for appointment to the post of Naib Tehsildar.
7. In view of the aforesaid directions, it was obligatory upon the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board to undertake a comprehensive re-evaluation of all candidates, followed by redrawing of the HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 16 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 selection list accordingly. The exercise of re-evaluation and preparation of merit could not have been confined or restricted only to the petitioners in SWP No. 487/2009. To that extent, the judgment dated 31.12.2014 is clearly a judgment in rem and not a judgment in personam, as it dealt with the legality and validity of the question paper and the resultant selection process as a whole. The selective implementation of the said judgment by the official respondents, whereby candidates with lower merit have been granted preference over candidates who were otherwise higher in merit after the redrawal of the merit list, is impermissible in law. Such an approach amounts to hostile discrimination and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, besides being contrary to the principles of fair play, equity, and transparency governing public employment.
8. The Hon'ble High Court, in the aforementioned judgment, has held as under:
"33. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The respondent Board shall delete 23 questions, namely question Nos. 3, 9, 31, 32, 35, 42, 47, 52, 64, 70, 71, 72, 80, 83, 84, 95, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111, 113 and 115, from the question paper and thereafter assess and evaluate the performance of the petitioners in SWP No. 487/2009 as well as the selected HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 17 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 (now appointed) candidates, i.e., respondents 4 to 110, as if the question paper comprised of 97 questions only.
The respondent Board shall thereafter prepare a category-wise merit list, redraw the select list, and recommend the candidates strictly on the basis of merit for appointment to the post of Naib Tehsildars accordingly. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(ii) Respondents No. 1 and 2, acting upon the recommendations so received, shall consider the appointment of the candidates so recommended, in accordance with the rules, within a further period of four weeks.
(iii) The selection list dated 08.09.2009 and the appointment order(s) issued on the basis thereof, to the extent of such selectees/appointees who do not find place in the redrawn select list, shall stand quashed.
(iv) The seniority of such selectees/appointees (respondents 4 to
110) who continue to find place in the redrawn selection list shall remain unaffected by the exercise undertaken by respondents 1 to 3 in compliance with this judgment"
9. Based on the pleadings and arguments put forth by the parties, questions for consideration before this Tribunal in the instant TA are:
Whether the claim of the applicants herein can be denied on the principle of delay in latches and can be termed as fence sitter?
Whether the merit of the applicants herein can be ignored and their merit can be treated as disadvantages for them?
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 18 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022
Whether the rejection order issued by the respondents is reasoned and inconsonance with the order dated 10.07.2015 passed in SWP No. 1119/2015 and well-founded principle of law, equity and fair play?
10. In terms of the judgment dated 31.12.2014, and in the absence of any challenge thereto, the respondent authorities were under a statutory and constitutional obligation to re-evaluate the answer scripts and redraw the selection list strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court. However, the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board failed to act with due promptitude and took nearly two years to comply, ultimately submitting a fresh merit list to the General Administration Department only vide communication dated 10.06.2016, after re-evaluation.
11. It is an admitted position that the present applicants had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing SWP No. 1199/2015, which was disposed of on 10.07.2015, pursuant to which their claim was considered but rejected by respondent No.1 vide Government Order No. 184-Rev of 2016 dated 06.12.2016. During the interregnum, no benefit whatsoever was extended to the applicants, HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 19 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 whereas similarly situated petitioners in SWP No. 487/2009 (Hamidullah Dar & Ors.) were granted appointment benefits vide Government Order No. 164-Rev of 2016 dated 10.11.2016.
12. The crucial aspect, rightly agitated by learned counsel for the applicants, is that the judgment dated 31.12.2014 directed deletion of 23 defective questions and mandated re-evaluation of the performance of all candidates, followed by preparation of a category-wise merit list and redrawing of the select list. The direction was not confined to the petitioners alone but covered the entire selection process. Consequently, the judgment is clearly a judgment in rem and not a judgment in personam.
13. Once the foundation of the selection itself was altered, it was obligatory upon the respondent Board to reassess the merit of every candidate who participated in the examination, and not to adopt a selective or truncated implementation. Any restriction of the re- evaluation exercise only to the petitioners would defeat the very purpose of the judgment and render the selection arbitrary.
14. The respondents' own pleadings admit that after re-evaluation, several selected candidates secured marks substantially lower than the HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 20 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 applicants, including candidates who secured 66.96%, 63.23%, 43.4%, and 69.44%, and one candidate who even secured zero marks. Granting appointment to such candidates while denying the same to applicants possessing higher merit constitutes hostile discrimination, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and offends the principles of fairness, equality, and merit- based public employment.
15. The respondents cannot be permitted to adopt a pick-and-choose approach in implementing judicial directions, particularly in matters of public employment. Such selective compliance is ex facie arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The plea raised in Government Order No. 184-Rev of 2016--that candidates who did not challenge the written test earlier or who allegedly participated in subsequent stages of selection are disentitled--is factually incorrect and unsupported by the record. The applicants never participated in any further selection process, a fact which the respondents have failed to rebut or substantiate with any material.
16. The purported dissimilarity sought to be drawn between the applicants and the beneficiaries of the Hamidullah Dar judgment is ill-founded, HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 21 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 artificial, and contrary to the record. The impugned order neither addresses nor explains how the applicants stand on a different footing, nor does it justify denial of equal treatment after re-evaluation of merit.
17. The objection of delay and laches is equally untenable, as the cause of action is recurring in nature, and the applicants have been diligently pursuing their remedies, including approaching the Hon'ble High Court at the earliest opportunity. The delay is entirely attributable to the inaction and selective conduct of the respondents and cannot be used to defeat the legitimate and constitutional claims of the applicants.
18. In these circumstances, the action of the respondent authorities is manifestly unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory, and is a direct affront to the constitutional mandate of equality and fair play in public employment.
19. The Hon'ble High Court, after taking cognizance of the report of the Expert Committee, vide Judgment and Order dated 31.12.2014, issued the following directions:
HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 22 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 a. The respondent Board shall delete 23 questions, namely Question Nos. 03, 09, 31, 32, 35, 42, 47, 52, 64, 70, 71, 72, 80, 83, 84, 95, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111, 113 and 115, from the question paper and thereafter reassess and re-evaluate the performance of the petitioners in SWP No. 487/2009 as well as the selected (now appointed) candidates, i.e., Respondents No. 4 to 110, as if the question paper comprised only 97 questions.
The respondent Board shall thereafter prepare category-wise merit lists, redraw the select list, and recommend candidates strictly on the basis of merit for appointment as Naib- Tehsildars. The entire exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. b. Respondents No. 1 and 2, acting upon the recommendations so received, shall consider and issue appointments of the candidates recommended, in accordance with the rules, within a further period of four weeks.
c. The selection list dated 08.09.2009, and the appointment orders issued pursuant thereto, to the extent of those selectees/appointees who do not figure in the redrawn select list, shall stand quashed.
d. The seniority of such selectees/appointees (Respondents No. 4 to 110) who continue to find place in the redrawn select list shall remain unaffected by the exercise undertaken by Respondents No. 1 to 3 in compliance with this judgment.
20. We draw support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, reported as (2006) 2 SCC 747, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that persons who are similarly situated cannot be treated differently merely because one of them has approached the Court. The Hon'ble HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 23 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 Supreme Court has further held that seniority and consequential service benefits must strictly be governed by the applicable statutory rules, and that creation of a supernumerary post or grant of any individualized relief cannot be construed as conferring an undue or special benefit dehors the rules. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are reproduced hereinbelow:
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time-to- time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well settled that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true that this Court took notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the meantime she had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a Category I post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to adjust her must be held to have been issued only with a view to accommodate her therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled to"
21. We are further fortified by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has lucidly enunciated the settled principles governing extension of judicial relief to similarly situated employees. The Court HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 24 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 held that the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is granted relief by a court, all other identically situated persons are entitled to the same treatment, and denial thereof would amount to hostile discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that service jurisprudence consistently mandates equal treatment of similarly placed employees and that mere non-approach to the court at an earlier point of time cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny parity. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as:-
"23(1). The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
23(2). However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of latches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 25 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
23.(3). However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like. On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgement extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays acquiescence."
22. A similar view and principle have also been affirmed and appreciated by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in LPA No. 46/2024 titled University of Kashmir, Hazratbal, through its Registrar v. Saif-Ud-Din Mir, wherein the Hon'ble Court, vide judgment dated 26.03.2024, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the University authorities, thereby upholding the findings of the learned Single Judge.
23. On an identical issue, the Division Bench of this Tribunal has already adjudicated the matter in T.A. No. 1101/2020, Sahil Khajuria HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 26 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 and Others vs. Union Territory of J&K and Others, wherein it has categorically held as under:
""23. It is a settled position of law that quasi-judicial authorities are duty-bound to record reasons in support of their conclusions. The insistence on recording of reasons serves the broader principle of justice that justice must not only be done but must also appear to have been done. Recording of reasons is an indispensable component of the decision-making process, as it facilitates effective judicial review by superior courts and is essential for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
It has been consistently held that the reasons so recorded must be cogent, clear, and explicit, and should not amount to mere 'rubber-stamp reasons'. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others, reported as 2010 (3) SCC (Civil) 852, wherein the Hon'ble Court held as under:
"51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India, the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially;
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions;
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done;
(d) Recording of reasons operates as a restraint on arbitrary exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative power;
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised on relevant grounds and by excluding extraneous considerations;
(f) Reasons have become an indispensable part of the decision-
making process, akin to observance of principles of natural justice;
(g) Reasons facilitate effective judicial review by superior courts;
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 27 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022
(h) The ongoing judicial trend favours reasoned decisions based on relevant facts, as reason is the soul of justice;
(i) Reasoned decisions demonstrate that relevant factors have been objectively considered, which is vital to maintain public confidence in the justice delivery system;
(j) Insistence on reasons is a requirement of judicial accountability and transparency;
(k) Absence of reasons makes it impossible to assess whether the authority has adhered to precedents or principles of law;
(l) Reasons must be cogent, clear, and succinct, and pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' cannot be equated with valid decision-making;
(m)It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non for restraining abuse of judicial power.
(n)Transparency not only minimizes errors but also subjects decision-makers to broader scrutiny. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the doctrine of fairness, it has attained the status of a component of human rights and due process."
24. The obligation to record and communicate reasons by quasi-judicial authorities has been reiterated in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the Constitution Bench judgment in S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, and also by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others (CWP-17672-2023).
25. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the T.A. was allowed and Government Order No. 184-Rev of 2016 dated 06.12.2016 was quashed. The respondents were directed to appoint the applicants as Naib-Tehsildars under the direct recruitment quota and to grant them all consequential service benefits including seniority, at par with the petitioners in SWP No. 487/2009 (Hamidullah Dar and Others) and SWP No. 360/2017 (Rajinder Kumar and Others), within a stipulated period of four weeks."
24. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, the pleadings on record, the rival submissions advanced by the learned HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 28 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 counsel for the parties, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the present Transferred Applications deserve to be allowed.
25. It stands conclusively established that the judgment dated 31.12.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 487/2009 (Hamidullah Dar & Others v. State of J&K & Others) was not confined merely to the individual petitioners therein, but struck at the very root of the selection process by declaring 23 questions in the written examination to be defective and mandating a fresh re- evaluation, redrawal of merit, and preparation of a category-wise select list strictly on the basis of merit. The nature, tenor, and scope of the said directions unmistakably render the judgment one in rem, binding upon the respondent authorities qua the entire selection.
26. The selective and truncated implementation of the said judgment by the respondents, confining its benefits only to a particular set of candidates while denying the same to the present applicants--who are admittedly similarly situated and, in fact, more meritorious--cannot HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 29 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 be sustained in law. Such an approach is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
27. The plea of delay and laches raised by the respondents is wholly misconceived. The record clearly demonstrates that the applicants have been continuously and diligently pursuing their remedies and that the delay, if any, is attributable entirely to the inaction, indecision, and selective conduct of the respondents. In any event, once the judgment is held to be in rem, the doctrine of fence-sitting has no application.
28. The impugned Government Order No. 01-Rev of 2017 dated 02.01.2017 rejecting the claim of the applicants is found to be unreasoned, arbitrary, and contrary to the binding judicial directions, as well as to the well-settled principles of service jurisprudence. The same is therefore unsustainable.
29. Accordingly, keeping the above point in view, the Transferred Applications are allowed, and the following directions are issued:
a) Government Order No. 01-Rev of 2017 dated 02.01.2017, whereby the claim of the applicants has been rejected, is hereby quashed and set aside.
HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 30 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022
b) The action of the respondents in conferring the benefits of re-
evaluation and appointment pursuant to the judgment dated 31.12.2014 only upon select candidates, while excluding the present applicants, is declared illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory.
c) The respondent authorities are directed to extend the same benefit to the applicants as has been granted to the beneficiaries of Government Order No. 164-Rev of 2016 dated 10.11.2016 issued in compliance with the judgment in Hamidullah Dar & Others, strictly in accordance with their merit position after re- evaluation.
d) The respondents shall confer the same benefits of re-evaluation to the petitioners and if eligible shall be appointed to the post of Naib Tehsildar under the relevant category, in accordance with rules, with effect from the date on which their immediate juniors / beneficiaries of the said judgment were appointed.
e) On appointment the applicants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits, including fixation of seniority at the appropriate place in the seniority list, notional pay HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 31 :: TA 2491/2020 & TA 230/2022 fixation, and continuity of service. However, the monetary benefits shall be restricted to notional benefits only, unless otherwise permissible under rules.
f) The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
30. The Transferred Applications are disposed of in the above terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member Judicial Member /harshit/ HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV