Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Raman Kumar vs Defence on 11 December, 2025
:: 1 :: TA 43/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 43/2024
Reserved on: - 28.07.2025
Pronounced on: - 11.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. Raman Kumar, Age 28 years S/o Sh. Isher Dass R/o Village Ballian,
P.O. Berrian
2. Varinder Sharma, Age 27 years S/o Sh. Bal Krishan R/o Village
Ballian, P.O. Khrodian Tehsil and District Udhampur
3. Shailendra Pratap Singh Jamwal, Age 27 years S/o Sh. Mangal Singh
R/o Village & PO Rown, Tehsil and District Udhampur
4. Ajay Kumar, Age 25 years S/o Sh. Gian Chand R/o Village Patta, P.O.
Barolla, Udhampur
5. Mukesh VErma, Age 23 years S/o Sh. MAdan Lal R/o CHack
Rakwalan District Udhampur
6. Yash Pal, Age 30 years S/o Sh. Som Raj R/o Village Nalla
(Kulana)P.O. Barolla, Udhampur
7. Keshav Singh, Age 28 years S/o Sh. Parshotam Singh R/o Village
Mand, Tehsil and District Udhampur
8. Sanjay Kumar, Age 32 years S/o Sh. Amar Chand R/o Village Trishi
P.O. Mansar, Udhampur
9. Namesh Singh, Age 26 years S/o Sh. Badri Nath R/o Village Dubigali
P.O. Moungari, Tehsil and District Udhampur
10.Rakesh Sharma, Age 25 years S/o Sh. Om Parkash R/oVillage & P.O.
Jib Tehsil and District Udhampur
11.Pardeep Kumar, Age 25 years S/o sh. Satish Kumar R/o Village
Herani, Tehsil Thathri District Doda
12.Pankaj Kumar, Age 24 years S/o Sh. Jai Krishan R/o Village Chak
Rakwalan Tehsil and District Udhampur
....Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. Mohinder Kumar)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 43/2024
Versus
1. Union of India Through Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, New
Delhi
2. Chief Engineer HQ Northern Command C/o 56 APO-914698
3. Commander Works Engineer, Military Engineering Services
Udhampur (J&K)-900386 C/o 56 APO
4. HQ Chief Engineer Udhampur Zone
5. Ricky Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Prem Chand Prasad
6. Ajay Kumar S/o Sh. Satyabir
7. Ashib Ali S/o Sh. Manga
8. Dhiraj Kumar S/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad
9. Abhijeet Kumar S/o Sh. Suresh Pandit
10. Ranjan Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Ramasray Singh
11. Raghwendra Kumar S/o Sh. Surender Kumar
12. Arunjay Kumar S/o Sh. Gupteshwar Prasad
13. Jeevan Pal Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh
14. Nitesh Sharma S/o Sh. Varinder Kumar
15. Shishupal Kumar S/o Sh. Paggu Singh
16. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. A.P. Singh
17. Akash Kumar . S/o Sh. Madan Prasad Gupt
18. Vikesh Kumar Patel S/o Sh. Rampravesh Patel
19. Muzahid Hussain S/o Sh. Zahid Hussain
20. Rohit Kumar S/o Sh. Raghuveer Prasad
21. Deepak S/o Sh. Subash Chand
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 43/2024
22. Om Prakash Ahirwar S/o Sh. Shalikram
23. Shashi Kumar Me S/o Sh. Mohan Meena
24. Ravi Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Meena
25. Vijay Kumar S/o Kashi Ram
26. Sanjay Chauhan S/o Dhoom Singh Chauhan
27. Tauseef Ahmad S/o Mohd Asaraf Ansari
28. Sunny Kumar S/o Kapoor Chand
29. Pappu Kumar S/o Vishnudev Prajapati
30. Amit Sharma S/o Kali Dass
31. Harendra Kumar S/o Kishor Yadav
32. Vikram Singh S/o Abhey Ram
33. Faijane Varisi S/o Kamru ud Din Varisi
34. Barun Kumar Yadav S/o Yugal Kishore Yadav
35. Satish Kumar S/o Arjun Mahto
36. Ajeet KumarS/o Shatrudhan Prasad Sah
37. Dalip S/o Shri Ram
38. Debasish Biswas S/o Dulal Chan Ra Biswas
39. Ashiq Ali S/o Abdul Ali
40. Pradeep Kumar S/o Chandradeep Vishwakarma
41. Doulat Ram Saini S/o Chota Lal Saini
42. Sarwar S/o Sajjan Singh
43. Satish Kumar S/o Ramjanm Pandit
44. Vijay Singh S/o Dasharat Singh
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: TA 43/2024
45. Asif S/o Jahir Khan
46. Ratnesh Kumar S/o Raj Kumar Singh
47. Sachin Kumar S/o Anokhe Lal
48. Gaurav Kumar Singh S/o Kiran Prasad Singh
49. Niteesh Kumar S/o Chandeshwar Parsad
50. Ram Rahis S/o Ram Chandra Lal
51. Avinash Kumar S/o Mahesh Parsad
52. Ashish Ranjan S/o Mahendra Narayan Singh
53. Dipak Prasad S/o Awadhesh Prasad
54. Balwant Singh S/o Suresh Kumar
55. Lekh Raj S/o Mohan Lal
56. Raj Kumar Gautam S/o Bhairav Prasad
57. Ashok Kumar S/o Paras Ram
58. Om Prakash S/o Paras Ram
Respondents No.5 to 58
C/o Commander Works Engineer,
Military Engineering Services
Udhampur (J&K)-900386
C/o 56 APO
...RESPONDENTS
(Advocate:- Mr. Raghu Mehta, Sr. CGSC)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 :: TA 43/2024
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.2910/2016 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.43/2024 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) Certiorari Quashing the select panel of the private respondents for the posts of Mate (Electrician), Mate (FGM) and Mate (Pipe Fitter), without any Reference No. and date and same was displayed by the respondents on the notice board on dated 27- 12-2016 in pursuance to Employment Notice No.41622/LRS/13- 14/256/E1C(2) dated 17th September, 2015 issued by the respondents being arbitrary, unconstitutional, illegal, malafide and against the principles of natural and also in violation of the directions dated 28-09-2016 passed in SWP No.2054/2016 titled Raman Kumar and ors V/s Union of India and ors" by this Hon'ble High Court.
b) Mandamus
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 6 :: TA 43/2024
So as to command and direct the official respondents to select and engage the petitioners for the posts of Mate (Various Trades) at CWE Udhampur being fully eligible and qualified in all respects and fall under Group 'C' & 'D' posts covered under area of CWE, Udhampur (J&K).
So as to command and direct the respondents to select the candidates from the locality or a region for which the post advertised under Local Recruitment Sanction by the Government of India.
So as to command and direct the respondents to call the entire record with regard to the selection of the private respondents.
c) Prohibition Restrain the official respondents from allowing the private respondents to join for the above said posts or issuing any formal engagement order to the private respondents till the outcome of the writ petition.
Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 43/2024
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
a) The applicants are permanent residents of Jammu & Kashmir who applied for the posts of Mate (Electrician), Mate (FGM) and Mate (Pipe Fitter) advertised through Employment Notice No. 41622/LRS/13-14/256/E1C(2) dated 17.09.2015, issued by the Chief Engineer, HQ Northern Command under the Local Recruitment Sanction (LRS). According to the applicants, the LRS scheme envisages recruitment for Group 'C' and 'D' posts from the locality/region falling within the jurisdiction of the concerned Commander Works Engineer (CWE), and the vacancies notified for Srinagar, Akhnoor, Leh and Udhampur were meant to be filled primarily from these local areas.
b) They assert that they were fully eligible and fell within the territorial jurisdiction of CWE Udhampur, covering Udhampur, Reasi, Bhaderwah, Ramban, Banihal and Samnabanj. However, despite possessing the requisite ITI qualifications, many local candidates did not receive call letters for the written examination held on 08.05.2016, while candidates from outside Jammu & Kashmir--who allegedly were not covered under the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 43/2024 LRS area--were permitted to appear. They contend that their applications were rejected on the ground of "low percentage in ITI," a ground which they allege was selectively applied.
c) The applicants further state that after the written examination, the respondents did not publish any shortlist in the public domain and directly proceeded with document verification of private respondents. They allege that the entire process was non-transparent, arbitrary, and in violation of the purpose of LRS, which--according to them--mandates giving adequate regional representation in recruitment.
d) They had earlier approached the High Court by filing SWP No. 2054/2016 challenging the shortlist, where an interim order dated 28.09.2016 directed that the selection process may continue but shall remain subject to further orders. According to the applicants, despite the subsisting interim restraint, the official respondents issued the final select list on 27.12.2016 without permission of the Court, without showing merit marks or proper details of selected candidates, and in complete disregard of the Court's direction.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 43/2024
e) They submit that the select panel is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, contrary to the recruitment notice, and issued with an intention to accommodate "blue-eyed" candidates. The applicants therefore seek quashing of the impugned selection and a direction to consider only local candidates falling within CWE Udhampur area for appointment.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents oppose the petition and submit that the applicants have no enforceable legal or fundamental right to challenge the selection after having participated in the process and failed to qualify. It is contended that the recruitment for the posts of Mate (various categories) was conducted strictly in accordance with the Employment Notice and the "Instructions/Additional Information to Candidates," and was carried out on an All-India basis, not restricted to any particular locality or region. They rely on Appendix-A of the advertisement to assert that all Indian citizens were eligible to HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 43/2024 apply, and therefore the plea of the applicants regarding "local area preference under LRS" is misconceived and factually incorrect.
b) The respondents submit that admit cards were issued only to candidates who fulfilled the eligibility conditions, and applicants whose forms were incomplete or who failed to meet the prescribed requirements were rejected with recorded reasons. They emphasize that the petitioners have produced no material to show that they fulfilled eligibility norms or had higher merit than the selected candidates.
c) It is further stated that the written examination for combined recruitment of Mate for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 was conducted on 08.05.2016 simultaneously throughout India as a direct recruitment exercise. The term "Local Recruitment Sanction" does not restrict recruitment to residents of a particular area; it merely indicates decentralization of recruitment for administrative convenience, while eligibility remains open to all Indian citizens fulfilling prescribed qualifications.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 43/2024
d) The respondents deny allegations of non-transparency, malafides, favouritism, or violation of the High Court's interim order. They contend that the interim order dated 28.09.2016 merely stated that the selection process shall remain subject to further orders, and did not bar issuance of the selection list or joining of selected candidates. No procedural irregularity is shown, nor is there any violation of statutory rules.
e) They reiterate that the private respondents secured higher merit and were selected strictly on the basis of performance in the written test and suitability as per recruitment norms. The applicants, having failed in the merit list and being less meritorious, cannot now challenge the selection. The writ petition is alleged to be vexatious, misconceived, and devoid of substance, and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application has been registered as TA No. 43/2024 on transfer of SWP No. 2910/2016 from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu to this Tribunal. The applicants, who were writ petitioners before the High Court, call HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 43/2024 in question the selection and appointment of private respondents to the posts of Mate (Electrician), Mate (FGM) and Mate (Pipe Fitter) under Employment Notice No. 41622/LRS/13-14/256/E1C(2) dated 17.09.2015, and seek their own appointment in place of the selected candidates.
7. The brief facts, as pleaded by the applicants, are that they are permanent residents of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir and fall within the local area of CWE Udhampur, which covers Udhampur, Reasi, Bhaderwah, Ramban, Banihal and Samnabanj. Respondent No. 2 issued the above Employment Notice under Local Recruitment Sanction (LRS) inviting applications from Indian citizens for various posts of Mate (Various Trades) under different CWE areas including Srinagar, Akhnoor, Leh and Udhampur. The applicants claim that they were fully eligible, duly qualified in the relevant ITI trades and submitted their applications against vacancies falling within CWE Udhampur area.
8. It is the grievance of the applicants that after receipt of applications, call letters for the written examination held on 08.05.2016 were not issued to several local candidates, including many from Jammu & Kashmir, on the ground of lesser percentage in ITI, whereas HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 43/2024 candidates from outside Jammu & Kashmir were permitted to appear. According to them, such outside candidates were not covered by CWE Udhampur area and their consideration defeats the very purpose of LRS which, as per their understanding, is meant to give preference to the local population within the jurisdiction of the concerned CWE.
9. The applicants further aver that after the written examination, the respondents did not publish the list of shortlisted candidates in the print media or on the internet and directly initiated document verification of the private respondents in a non-transparent manner. They also assert that earlier they had challenged the shortlist by filing SWP No. 2054/2016 wherein, vide interim order dated 28.09.2016, the Hon'ble High Court permitted the respondents to proceed with the selection process but made it subject to further orders. Despite this, the official respondents, according to the applicants, issued the final select list on 27.12.2016 in violation of the interim direction, without disclosing reference number, date, merit marks and addresses of the selected candidates. The select list is alleged to be arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the concept of LRS. On these pleadings, they seek quashing of the impugned select panel and a direction to consider HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 43/2024 and appoint the applicants, or candidates from the local area only, against the advertised posts.
10. The respondents (official as well as selected private respondents) have filed their reply/objections contesting the claim. At the outset, they submit that the recruitment in question was conducted strictly in accordance with the Employment Notice and the "Instructions/Additional Information to candidates for recruitment by selection", and that the process was an All-India direct recruitment, not confined to any particular locality or region. They rely upon Appendix "A" to the advertisement and the instructions to candidates to point out that the posts were open to all eligible Indian citizens, and therefore the plea of the applicants that selection was required to be confined to local candidates of CWE Udhampur area is misconceived and contrary to the explicit terms of the advertisement.
11. The respondents further contend that call letters for the written examination were issued only to those candidates whose application forms were complete in all respects and who fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria. Forms which were incomplete or where the candidates did not meet the requisite conditions were rejected with recorded reasons. The applicants, according to the respondents, have HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 43/2024 neither produced any material to show that they fulfilled all eligibility norms nor any proof that they secured marks higher than the selected candidates.
12. It is also stated that the written examination for combined recruitment of Mates for the recruitment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 was conducted on 08.05.2016 on the same date and time throughout India as a direct recruitment exercise. According to the respondents, "Local Recruitment Sanction" does not mean that recruitment is geographically confined to residents of a particular locality; it merely denotes that sanction for filling certain Group 'C' and erstwhile Group 'D' posts is delegated to field formations, while eligibility remains open to all Indian citizens meeting the prescribed qualifications and reservation roster. Adequate representation, it is stated, has been provided to all categories, including SC/ST/OBC, as per the applicable roster.
13. The respondents deny all allegations of non-transparency, favouritism, or accommodation of "blue-eyed" candidates and submit that the entire process was closely monitored by higher authorities and conducted strictly as per policy and instructions. As regards the interim order dated 28.09.2016 passed in SWP No. 2054/2016, they HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: TA 43/2024 submit that the order merely provided that the selection process shall continue subject to further orders; it did not impose any express restraint on issuance of the select list or joining of selected candidates. In any event, even assuming any grievance on that count, the same does not ipso facto confer any right upon the applicants to seek quashing of a selection otherwise held as per rules and advertisement conditions.
14. The respondents also raise a preliminary objection that the applicants, having participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the terms and conditions of recruitment, cannot turn around after failing in the merit list and challenge the very process. The petition is stated to be vexatious, misconceived and devoid of cause of action, as no concrete procedural irregularity, violation of statutory rules or proof of mala fides has been demonstrated by the applicants. They thus pray for dismissal of the Transfer Application.
15. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the official respondents and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 17 :: TA 43/2024
Points for Consideration
16. In view of the rival pleadings, the following questions arise for consideration:
a) Whether the applicants have made out any legal or fundamental right to insist that recruitment under the Employment Notice dated 17.09.2015 should be confined only to local candidates of CWE Udhampur area under the Local Recruitment Sanction?
b) Whether there is any demonstrated illegality, procedural irregularity, mala fide, or violation of the interim order dated 28.09.2016 warranting interference with the impugned select list?
c) Whether, on the facts and in law, the applicants are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing their selection/appointment in place of the private respondents?
Re: Scope and nature of recruitment under LRS
17. The foundation of the applicants' case is their assertion that the vacancies were to be filled from the local area only and that candidates from outside Jammu & Kashmir could not have been considered in view of the Local Recruitment Sanction. However, the respondents have placed reliance on the Employment Notice and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: TA 43/2024 instructions to candidates to show that the posts were open to all Indian citizens, and that the examination was conducted on an All- India basis. The applicants have not produced any part of the advertisement or policy which expressly restricts eligibility only to local residents of CWE Udhampur area. On the contrary, the stand of the respondents that the LRS denotes administrative sanction and delegation, and not a legal right of exclusivity for local candidates, appears more consistent with the material on record.
18. It is well settled that recruitment has to be governed by the terms of the advertisement and the applicable rules. In the absence of any specific stipulation conferring a statutory or enforceable right of local- only consideration, this Tribunal cannot read into the advertisement a restriction which is not there. The grievance of the applicants that candidates from outside the local area have been considered, therefore, does not disclose violation of any legal or fundamental right.
Re: Challenge after participation and failure in selection
19. It is also an admitted position that the applicants applied in response to the Employment Notice and participated in the selection process. The grounds now canvassed--that recruitment should have been HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 :: TA 43/2024 local-area restricted, that All-India candidates could not be considered, etc.--all relate to the very scheme and conditions of recruitment which were known or ought to have been known to the applicants at the time of advertisement. Having taken a chance in the process, they cannot, after failing to secure selection, turn around and challenge the same process.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of the rules and terms is ordinarily estopped from questioning the same after being unsuccessful, unless there is a clear case of illegality or fraud going to the root of the matter. The applicants have not demonstrated any such illegality. Their plea is essentially that they should have been preferred because they are local residents, which, as already discussed, is not borne out from the recruitment conditions. Re: Alleged violation of interim order dated 28.09.2016
21. The applicants have also alleged that issuance of the select list on 27.12.2016 violated the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 28.09.2016 passed in SWP No. 2054/2016. The interim order, as extracted in the pleadings, directed that the respondents may proceed with the selection process, but the same shall remain subject to further HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 :: TA 43/2024 orders. There is no explicit restraint imposed on issuing the select list or effecting appointments.
22. Even assuming that the applicants had any grievance about the manner of implementation of the interim order, the proper course would have been to seek appropriate clarification or relief before the Hon'ble High Court in that very proceeding. In any case, an alleged breach of an interim order between parties does not by itself render an otherwise lawfully conducted selection void, unless it is shown that the process itself was contrary to the statutory rules, advertisement conditions or principles of natural justice. No such substantive infirmity has been established before us.
Re: Allegations of mala fide, arbitrariness and discrimination
23. The applicants have used expressions such as "pick and choose", "blue-eyed persons", "arbitrary" and "mala fide" in their pleadings. However, apart from general allegations, no specific instance, name of any authority, or concrete material has been brought on record to substantiate these serious allegations. Mala fides must be specifically pleaded and clearly proved; vague assertions are not sufficient to invalidate a selection process.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 21 :: TA 43/2024
24. The respondents, on the other hand, have maintained that the process was conducted strictly in terms of the policy, monitored by higher headquarters, that only eligible candidates were issued admit cards and that the private respondents secured higher merit in the selection process. The applicants have not produced any comparative statement of marks or eligibility to show that they were more meritorious than the selected candidates. In the absence of such material, this Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate body over the selection committee to re- assess merit or substitute its own view in place of the expert body. Re: Prayer for mandamus for appointment
25. The applicants also seek a direction commanding the respondents to select and appoint them against the posts of Mate (Various Trades). It is trite law that even a candidate included in a select list does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment and that the court normally does not direct appointment, but only ensures that the selection and appointment, if made, are in accordance with law. In the present case, the applicants were not selected at all. Having failed in the selection, in the absence of any established illegality, they cannot be granted a positive direction for appointment by dislodging the duly selected candidates.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 22 :: TA 43/2024
26. Interference with a completed selection process and appointments already made is not to be undertaken lightly, particularly when no violation of statutory rules, advertisement conditions or constitutional guarantees is demonstrated. Disturbing appointments at this stage would unsettle the service of those who have already joined and are discharging their duties, without any clear finding of illegality against them or the selecting authority.
27. On a cumulative consideration of the pleadings and submissions, we are satisfied that:
the recruitment was conducted on an All-India basis as per the advertisement and instructions;
the applicants have failed to show any statutory or constitutional right to insist on local-only recruitment; there is no material to prove procedural irregularity, mala fide, or violation of the principles of natural justice; and the applicants, having participated in the selection and remained unsuccessful, cannot now challenge the process or claim a mandamus for their own appointment.
28. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal finds no merit in the present Transfer Application. The challenge to the impugned select HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 :: TA 43/2024 list and the consequential prayer for directing the appointment of the applicants are unsustainable in law as well as on facts.
29. Accordingly, TA No. 43/2024 is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
30. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV