Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Hans Raj vs Directorate Of School Education Ut Of ... on 19 November, 2025
:: 1 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (RESERVED ON 03/06/2025)
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 61/2577/2020
Pronounced on: - This the 19th day of November, 2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. Sh. Hans Raj age 55 years S/O Late Sh. Dev Raj
R/O Village Shahpur Tehsil Budhal District Rajouri.
2. Sh. Dewan Chand age 53 years S/O Sh. Baldev Singh
R/O village Badhal Tehsil Budhal District Rajouri.
3. Sh. Abdul Hamid age 48 years S/O Sh. Salam Din
R/O Village Draj Tehsil Kotranka District Rajouri.
4. Smt. Santosh Kumari age 44 years W/O Sh. Kala Ram Sharma
R/O Village Rajal Tehsil Nowshera District, Rajouri.
....Applicants
(Through Advocate: Mr. O.P. Thakur, Sr. Advocate)
VERSUS
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner
Secretary Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
2. Director School Education, Jammu.
3. Chief Education Officer, Rajouri.
4. Sh. Ashok Kumar Laboratory Assistant
Govt. Higher Secondary School (Boys) Rajouri.
5. Smt. Madhu Kanta Laboratory Assistant
:: 2 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020
Govt. High School Potha Tehsil and District Rajouri.
6. Sh. Bharat Bhushan Laboratory Assistant
Hr. Secondary School Boys Rajouri.
7. Sh. Maskeen Shah Laboratory Assistant
Govt. Hr. Secondary School (Boys) Rajouri.
....Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, learned A.A.G.)
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 2396/2014 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court with following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that writ petition may kindly be accepted by issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order including in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order issued by respondent No. 2 whereby respondents 4 to 7 who are juniors to the petitioner have been promoted as Laboratory Assistant including in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and promote the petitioner as Laboratory Assistant with all consequential benefits.
Costs of the petition with such other additional or alternate relief which this Hon'ble court may in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper be also awarded to the Petitioners."
3. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings are as follows:
:: 3 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 a. That the Petitioners are the permanent residents of the J&K State and citizens of India. They are, therefore, entitled to the protection of fundamental, statutory and other legal rights in force in the state.
b. That the Petitioner No.1 has passed 10 +2 examination in the year 1991. He is the resident of village Shahpur which has been identified as Backward area. He, therefore, belongs to RBA category and he has been appointed as Laboratory bearer on 16-9-1993. He is presently posted in the Govt. Hr. Secondary School Budhal Rajouri. Department has maintained seniority list of Laboratory bearers. He is figuring at S.No. 82 in the said seniority list. c. That the petitioner No.2 has passed Matriculation examination in the year 1980. Subsequently he has passed 10 + 2 examination in the year 1985. He has also passed B.A final examination in the year 1991. He has been appointed as Laboratory bearer on 20-7-1994 on permanent basis. His date of birth is 3-1- 1961. Presently he is posted in Govt. High School Budhal (Khawas). In the seniority list of Laboratory Bearer due to mistake his date of appointment has wrongly been shown as 28-4-1993 instead of 20-7-1994. He has been placed at S.No. 68. It is submitted that as per the appointment of the petitioner, he is entitled to be placed below Sh.Sat Pal who is figuring at S.No. 107 in the said seniority list. He is also the resident of Backward area. A backward area certificate has also been submitted to the department. This fact has also been reflected in the service book of the petitioner. In the seniority list, he has, therefore, wrongly been shown as belonging to General category instead of RBA category. d. That the petitioner No. 3 has passed matriculation examination in the year 1988. He has been appointed as Laboratory bearer on 21-7-1994. He belongs to other social :: 4 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 caste and RBA categories. Presently he is posted in Govt. Higher Secondary School (Boys) Rajouri. In the seniority list of Laboratory bearer he has been placed at S.No. 115. e. That petitioner No.4 has passed matriculation examination in the year 1989 Subsequently she has passed 10+2 examination which fact has been duly recorded in her service book. She has been appointed as Laboratory bearer on 20-7-1994. Presently she is posted in Higher Secondary School Nowshera. In the seniority list of Laboratory bearer she has been placed at S.No. 108.
f. That the service conditions of the Non-Gazetted employees of the Education department were governed by the rules namely the J&K Educational (Subordinate service recruitment) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the Recruitment rules of 1979").
g. A bare perusal of the Recruitment Rules, 1979 read with schedule-A would show that the classification of the officers/ official have been made by showing them in the ministerial, technical and executive categories. That the posts of General line teacher, Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory bearer have been rightly placed under the technical category. Their promotion avenues have also been provided in the said Recruitment rules, 1979 with reference to the particular trade.
h. It is specifically submitted that the posts of Laboratory Assistant were to be filled up as under:-
(i) 75% by direct recruitment and
(ii) 25% by promotion from, Laboratory bearers
who is at least matriculates with two years'
experience as such.
i. That under the aforesaid Recruitment Rules, 1979, the posts of Jamadar, Daftry, Orderlies and Chowkidars have :: 5 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 been placed in the Ministerial category. Their promotion avenue has also specifically been provided under the said rules in the ministerial category only.
j. That in terms of the aforesaid Recruitment Rules of 1979 separate seniority list of the Laboratory bearers has been maintained by the department. The petitioners have been placed at S.No. 82,68,115 and 108 respectively. Since the petitioners are possessing the requisite qualification, they were/ are entitled to be promoted to the next higher post of Laboratory Assistant.
k. That vide SRO 308 dated 16-10-2008 new set of Recruitment Rules have been framed which are called the J&K School Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as " The Recruitment rule, 2008"). In terms of Rule 13 of the Recruitment rules of 2008 the earlier Recruitment rules of 1979 have been repealed.
l. That a bare perusal of the Recruitment Rules of 2008 would show that different posts in Education department have been categorized into two categories:-
(i) Ministerial.
(ii) Technical.
m. It is specifically submitted that the posts of Orderly, peon, Chowkidar, Book keeper, Laboratory bearer, Library bearer etc have been placed under ministerial category. Whereas the posts of Master, Librarian, teacher, Jr. Librarian, Laboratory Assistant, Library Assistant, Laboratory bearer, Library bearer, etc, have been placed under Technical category.
n. It appears that due to over sight or mistake or otherwise the posts of Laboratory Bearer and Library bearer have been placed both under ministerial and Technical :: 6 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 categories which has resulted in miscarriage of justice so far as their future promotion avenue is concerned. o. That in terms of Recruitment Rules of 2008 the posts of Laboratory Assistant have to be filled up 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from class VII of Schedule II (A) having matriculation qualification with three years substantive service in that class. In other words, for the technical posts of Laboratory Assistant the non-technical candidates/ employees i.e orderlies, peons, Chowkidars etc have been made eligible for further promotion. The aforesaid qualification is unconstitutional. p. That in pursuance of the Recruitment rules of 2008 the respondents 1 to 3 made some promotion to the posts of Laboratory Assistant whereby the employees other than the Laboratory Bearers were also promoted. It appears that in other district also similar promotions were made. q. A number of writ petitions were filed by the Laboratory bearers belonging to different districts. A writ petition bearing SWP 1314/2009 was filed by 9 Laboratory bearers titled Ashok Kumar and others V/S State and others. This Hon'ble court disposed off a batch of writ petitions including the aforesaid SWP 1314/2009 vide judgment and order dated 18-4-2012. This Hon'ble court has held that a large number of vacancies of Laboratory Assistants were unfilled at the time of Recruitment Rules of 2008 came into force. It has further been held that in terms of recruitment rules of 1979 a right had accrued to them to be considered for promotion to the available vacancies in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of 1979 and such right was not to be taken away by the Recruitment Rules of 2008. Accordingly a direction was given to the respondents therein to work out the posts of Laboratory Assistant available prior to coming into force of Recruitment Rules of :: 7 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 2008, accord consideration to them for promotion against such posts in accordance with Recruitment Rules of 1979 and allow the private respondents to continue against the remaining/ left out posts without prejudice to their seniority. It appears that an appeal bearing LPA (SW) No. D-143/2013 along with condonation of delay bearing Codl.SW No; D-96/2013 was filed by the state of J&K against the said judgment and order. However, the said appeal was disposed off vide judgment and order dated 24- 3-2014 on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the state. The said order is reproduced below:-
I/ Mr.Ravinder Sharma learned AAG states that the judgment shall be implemented within a period of two weeks.
II/ In view of the statement made by the learned state counsel the instant appeal has been rendered infractuous as no issue survive for adjudication. Accordingly we direct the appellants to implement the judgment in accordance with the statement made by the learned AAG.
III/ The appeal is dismissed as having been rendered infractuous along with application seeking condonation of delay"
r. That thereafter respondent No.1 vide his letter dated 12-6- 2014 conveyed approval to the respondent No.2 for implementing the aforesaid judgment in letter and spirit. s. The respondent No.2 vide his letter No. DSE/Legal/6790- 6801 dated 20-6-2014 directed all the Chief Education Officers including the respondent No.3 to implement the judgment passed by this Hon'ble court in letter and spirit by passing speaking order.
t. That the respondents 1 to 3 have worked out the vacancies of Laboratory Assistant which remained un-filled before 16-10-2008 when the Recruitment Rules of 2008 came into force. Thereafter, the exercise for promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant was done. It is submitted that the said posts were/ are required to be filled up from the Laboratory Bearers only as provided under Recruitment Rules of 1979.
:: 8 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 u. That as a matter of fact the respondent No.2 has issued an order whereby as many as 13 Laboratory Bears including the respondents 4 to 7 have been promoted to the posts of Laboratory Assistant in Rajouri Districts. v. That it is submitted that respondent No. 4 to 7 are Junior to the petitioners as Lab bearers. Respondent No.4 to 7 are figuring in the seniority list at S.No. 122, 127,139 and 196 respectively. It is further submitted that all of them belongs to General category. This fact is also clear from the seniority list itself.
w. That as submitted above the petitioners are senior to respondents 4 to 7. They were/ are also eligible, qualified and possessing the requisite experience as required for promotion to the posts of Laboratory Assistant in terms of Recruitment Rules, 1979. Their fundamental, statutory and legal rights have been violated.
x. That in the seniority list which has been provided to the petitioner No.3 of the class IV employees including the Laboratory bearers who have been promoted to the next higher post have been encircled. It is further submitted that the said seniority list has been provided with the said circular and written words like "promotion as Laboratory Assistant etc". It is submitted that the petitioners have not written any thing on the said seniority list. y. It is submitted that despite demand the petitioner No.3 has not been provided the copy of the promotion order issued by respondent No.2. To the best knowledge of the petitioners, the said promotion order has been issued on first week of July 2014. In these circumstances the petitioners are not in a position to place on record the copy of the promotion order. However in the list which has been provided to the petitioners, as many as 13 Laboratory :: 9 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 Bearers including respondents 4 to 7 have been promoted in Rajouri district.
z. That in the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the promotion order and promotion of respondents 4 to 7 as Laboratory Assistant is challenged in this writ.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a. It is admitted that the qualification of petitioner No.1 is 10+2 (Arts) and his category certificate is also mentioned in the seniority list the date of first appointment of petitioner No.1 is 16.09.1993 presently posted in HSS Budhal, his name is figured at S.No. 53 as per seniority list prepared as on 06.03.1994 as per SRO 308/2008.
b. It is admitted that the qualification of petitioner No. 2 is B.A. and his category certificate is also mentioned in the seniority list. The date of first appointment of petitioner No. 2 is 20.07.1994 presently posted in HS Badhal his name is figured at S.No. 73 as per seniority list prepared as on 06.03.2019 as per SRO 308/2008.
c. It is admitted that the qualification of petitioner No. 3 is 10th and his category certificate (OSC) is also mentioned in the seniority list. The date of first appointment of petitioner No. 3 is 21.07.1994 presently posted in HSS Rajouri his name is figured at S.No. 80 as per seniority list prepared as on 06.03.2019 as per SRO 308/2008, d. It is admitted to the extent that the qualification of petitioner No. 4 is 10+2 Arts and she belongs to General category is also mentioned in the seniority list. The date of first appointment of petitioner No. 4 is 20.07.1994 presently posted in BHSS, Nowshera, her name is figured :: 10 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 at S.No. 78 as per seniority list prepared as on 06.03.2019 as per SRO 308/2008.
e. That Service conditions of Non Gazetted employees of the Education department were governed by the J&K Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules vide SRO 308 of 2008, dated. 16.10.2008, the service recruitment Rules, 308/2008, wherein designation of different categories of IV class employees was clubbed under one head and quota of promotion was also enhanced from 25% to 50%. f. That the separate seniority list of the laboratory bearers was maintained by the department however the petitioners are figuring at S.No. 53, 73, 80 and 78 as per seniority mentioned under SRO 308. (Clubbed seniority). The promotions accorded in the year 2018 by Chief Education Officer, Rajouri as per clubbed seniority was upto S.No. 39, as such the name of the petitioners has not yet reached in the seniority list, therefore, the writ petition to that extent may kindly be dismissed.
g. That the posts of orderlies, Poens, Chowkdar, Book keepers, laboratory bearers, Library bearer, Attendant, Mallies, Gardeners, Ground Coolies, Waterman, Chairmen, Farmhands, Animal keepers, Gasman, Farashes, Packers, Conductors and Safiawallas were clubbed together and placed under Class VIII in the pay Grade of 2550-3200 with Minimum Qualification Metric and Maximum 10+2 these posts are to be filled by 50% direct recruitment and 50% from Contingent / Local fund paid employees by a committee duly constituted for purpose by the concerned Director School Education. However no specification is mentioned in the SRO- 308 regarding Technical and ministerial as such no oversight / or mistake is done by the Government in the SROS. As per schedule II (B) of SRO 308 the post of Lab Asstts is categorized under class IV with pay Grade :: 11 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 3050-4910 the minimum Qualification for direct recruitment is 10+2 with science or equivalent is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from class VIII of schedule II-A having Matriculation qualification with 3 year Substantive service.
h. That respondent No. 4, 5 & 6 were promoted by the Director School Education with directions issued by Hon'ble Court in SWP No. 1321/2009, CMP Jammu, vide DSEJ/Legal/13068-76 Dated: 19.02.2014, in compliance No D-528/2012 c/w SWP No 2312/2009, 1315/2009, 967/2009, 1108/2009, 1093/2009, 1184/2009 and 1314/2009 titled Shakeel Ahmed others v/s State & Ors. Whereas, respondent No. 7 was promoted by the then Chief Education officer Rajouri in compliance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 1314/2009 & directions issued by Administrative Department vide No. EDU/legal/J/9/2010 dated 12-6-2014 and conveyed by the then Director School Education, Jammu vide No. DSEJ/legal/6790-6801 dated 20-6-2014, resultantly the then Chief Education Officer had passed a speaking order vide No. CEOR/NT/6991-7006 dated 21-7- 2014, wherein respondent No. 7 was adjusted/placed as Lab bearer along with 04 other Lab Bearers as Lab Asstt, in own pay and grade and till date they are working in own pay and grade but not confirmed by DPC as Lab Asstts due to the non availability of vacant posts of Lab Asstt; and as of now there is no post of Lab Asstt. as per Rules of 1979.
i. That Director School Education, Jammu, vide No. DSEJ/legal/6790-6801 dated 20-06-2014, conveyed approval for implementation of the Judgment and in compliance therewith the than Chief Education Officer had passed a speaking order vide No. CEOR/NT/6991-7006 dated 21-7-2014, wherein, respondent No. 7 was :: 12 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 adjusted/placed as Lab bearer in own pay and grade and till date they are working in own pay and grade but not confirmed as Lab Assistants due to the non availability of vacant posts of Lab Asstt; and as of now there is no post available of Lab Asstt. As per Rules of 1979 all the posts have been filled up as per Hon'ble Court's directions. j. That in compliance to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, Jammu the vacancies of Lab. Asstt as available prior to the coming of recruitment 2008 has been worked out and the same is reflected as under:
VACANCY POSITION OF LAB ASSISTANTS AS ON 12-12-2008 DESIGNATION" VACANCY" PROMOTION QUOTA NO. OF AS PER VACANCIES RECRUITMENT FOR DPC RULES, 1979 LAB 31 25% 08 ASSISTANTS k. Whereas, out of 08 available vacancies of Lab Asstt as reflected above, 01 Lab bearer (Class IV) namely Mohinder Kour had been promoted as Lab Asstts by the then Director School Education, Jammu by passing a detailed speaking order vide No. DSEJ/Legal/5941-43 Dated: 30-12-2013 in compliance to the Hon'ble High Court directions passed on 3-6-2011 in SWP No. 331/2009 titled Mohinder Kour v/s State & ors.
And after consideration of cases of Mohinder Kour for promotion to the post of Lab Asstt, only 07 vacancies of Lab Assistants were left vacant. Further. the then Director School Education, Jammu also considered the case of 07 petitioners in SWP No. 1321/2009 and promoted them as Lab Assistants by passing a detailed speaking order 100 vide No. DSEJ/Legal/13068-76 Dated: 19.02.2014.
:: 13 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 l. As such, after the placement of 1+7 Lab Bearer as Lab Assistants by then Director School Education, Jammu vide orders dated 30-12-2013 and 19-2-2014 respectively no vacancy of Lab Assistants was left available as per Rules of 1979.
m. That the name of the petitioners 1, 2, 3 & 4 are reflected at S. No. 53, 73, 80 & 78 respectively and name of the respondents 4, 5, 6, & 7 are reflected at S. No 91, 90, 102, & 156 respectively as per revised seniority list as on 06-03- 2019 under SRO 308 of 2008. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent 4, 5, and 6, were promoted as Lab Asstt in their own pay and grade due to non availability of posts of Lab Asstt as Rules of 1979.
5. Before going into controversy raised in this case, the order dated 18.04.2022 passed in SWP Nos. 1321/2009, 2312/2009, 1315/2009, 967/2009, 1108/2009, 1093/2009, 1184/2009 and 1314/2009 by the Hon'ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court is reproduced for ready reference:
"1. The controversy raised in all the above captioned petitions is identical and all the petitions are at request taken up together.
2. The petitioners are members of Sub-ordinate Service of the State Education Department and have been appointed much before Jammu and Kashmir School Education (Sub- Ordinate Service) Recruitment Rules, 2008, notified vide SRO No.308 of 2008 came into force.
3. The petitioners' case is that they having been appointed prior to the date Recruitment Rules of 2008 were notified, are to be governed in the matter of their promotion by the Recruitment Rules of 1979 in force, on- the-date of their appointment as also on the date(s) the opportunity for promotion opened up for the petitioners' due to new creations, retirements etc.
4. The petitioners are aggrieved that the respondents, unmindful of the rule position, have made promotions as regards the posts that became :: 14 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 available prior to coming into force of Recruitment Rules of 2008, on the basis of the said Recruitment Rules. It is pointed out that in terms of Recruitment Rules of 1979, promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistants was to be made 75% by direct recruitment and 25% by promotion from "Laboratory Bearers" with matriculate Laboratory Bearers with two years experience as such. It is pleaded that in the Recruitment Rules of 2008, the consideration to the post of "Laboratory Assistant" has been widened by including Orderlies/Peons/Book Keepers /Laboratory Bearers/Chowkidars /Malis /Ground /Coolies / Waterman/ Ahimal Keepers/ Farashers/ Gas man in the feeding cadre. It is pointed out that the respondents by clubbing together different categories and constituting a single feeding source have adversely affected the petitioners' promotional avenues and deprived them of their right to be considered for a promotion, otherwise due to them.
5. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The controversy raised falls squarely within purview of judgment rendered in "Mohinder Kour and ors. Vs. State and ors." reported as 2011(2) JKJ 955 (HC). It needs no emphasis that the respondents are clothed with the power to revise Recruitment Rules at any point of time. However, the revised Recruitment Rules cannot be used to deprive the Members of the service from the benefit that has accrued to them prior to revision of the Recruitment Rules.
7. In the present case, admittedly, a large number of vacancies of Laboratory Assistants were unfilled at the time of Recruitment Rules of 2008, came into force. In terms of Recruitment Rules, 1979, a right had accrued to the petitioners to be considered for promotion to the available vacancies in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of 1979, and such right was not to be taken away by Recruitment Rules of 2008. There is, thus, merit in the petitioners' case.
8. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. However, instead of dislodging such of the private respondents who have been promoted in terms of Recruitment Rules of 2008, against the vacancies that became available prior to coming into force of Recruitment Rules of 2008, the Official respondents are directed to work out the posts of Laboratory Assistants, available prior to coming into force of Recruitment Rules of 2008, accord consideration to the petitioners' promotion against such posts in accordance with Recruitment Rules of 1979, and allow the private respondents to continue against the remaining/left out posts without prejudice to the petitioners' seniority as Laboratory Assistants, in the event, they are on consideration, so promoted.
:: 15 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020
9. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of along with connected CMPs."
6. In view of the aforecited judgment, it is evident that the controversy involved in this case was decided by the Hon'ble High Court wherein the respondents were directed to give promotion to the petitioners of these writ petitions in terms of Recruitment Rules, 1979.
Hence, there is no rooms to leave a different view by this Tribunal because the writ jurisdiction court has passed the order in favour of the petitioners of those writ petitions.
7. It is admitted fact that respondent nos. 4 to 7 are juniors to the petitioners of this petition. They have been promoted on the ground that they had filed the writ petition in before the Hon'ble High Court bearing SWP No; 1314/2009.
8. That the Hon'ble High Court has not directed to the official respondents to promote the respondent nos. 4 to 7 to the post of Laboratory Assistant irrespective of their sonority by superseding the senior Laboratory bearer. That while making the promotion of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 to the post of Laboratory Assistant, the petitioners have not been considered.
9. Admittedly the said posts had become vacant before the Recruitment Rules of 2008 came into force. The said posts were required to be filled up under Recruitment Rules of 1979. As a matter of fact the said posts have been filled up as per the direction given by the Hon'ble court under the said Recruitment rules of 1979. In the said rules, the petitioners possessed the requisite qualification as well as the :: 16 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 required service as stipulated therein. The petitioners, therefore, were/ are fully eligible to the said posts of Laboratory Assistant.
10. The non-consideration of the petitioner for promotion, therefore, has violated their fundamental, statutory and legal rights. The promotion of respondents 4 to 7, therefore, deserves to be quashed on this ground as well.
11. That the respondents 1 to 3 have not given any reasons for the promotion of respondents 4 to 7 for promotion though they were junk or to the painters. The said act of respondents 1 to 3, therefore, is not only unconstitutional and discriminatory but also unreasonable.
12. It is settled principle of law that in case of superseding the senior employees the concerned authority is under legal obligation to record reasons. On this ground also the promotion of respondents 4 to 7 deserves to be quashed.
13. It is admitted fact that promotions were to be made in respect of the not filled posts of Laboratory Assistant under the Recruitment Rules of 1979. The respondents 1 to 3, therefore were under legal obligation to make promotion on the basis of the seniority not on the basis of filing of writ petition and has not been given preferential right to supersede the petitioners who were senior to them. On this ground also the order of promotion of respondents 4 to 7 deserves to be quashed.
14. It is settled principle of law that while making promotion the seniority of the employees cannot be ignored on the ground that some Juniors have filed the writ petition. The respondents 1 to 3 were legal obligation to consider all the Laboratory bearer including the petitioner to consider and promote the petitioner against the post which become vacant before the recruitment rules of 2008 came into force.
:: 17 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020
15. In the matter of Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel vs. Union of India and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022], decided on 09th December, 2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court had categorically held that individuals need not file separate cases for relief granted to others in similar cases. The relevant para(s) are reproduced herein below:
"14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen 9 aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714]
15. In K.I. Shephard and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 431, this Court while reinforcing the above principle held as under:-
"19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to amalgamation. The employees would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks throughout the period. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to court. There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners. ...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. No doubt, in exceptional cases where the court has expressly prohibited the extension of the benefit to those who have not approached the court till then or in cases where a grievance in :: 18 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 personam is redressed, the matter may acquire a different dimension, and the department may be justified in denying the relief to an individual who claims the extension of the benefit of the said judgment.
17. That is not the situation here. In the submissions too, the respondents have not been able to point out any valid justification as to how the juniors of petitioners namely Sh. Ashok Kumar, Smt. Madhu Kanta, Sh. Bharat Bhusan and Sh. Maskeen Shah have been promoted in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court judgment dated 18.04.2012 passed in SWP No. 1314/2009 and other connected SWPs.
18. The respondent authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court dated 18.04.2012 passed in SWP No.1314/2009 and other connected SWPs to the juniors of the petitioners who are claiming the similar benefits of the aforesaid judgment. Will it be fair to tell him that they will not be given relief even if they are similarly situated. We think that would be a very unfair scenario. This Court would endorse an irrational position taken by the authorities if it accepted the respondents' position in this matter.
19. Hence, as per discussions of the foregoing para(s), we are of the considered opinion that petitioners should be promoted to the post of Laboratory Assistant since the juniors were given the promotion.
20. Accordingly, T.A. is allowed. However, instead of dislodging such of the private respondents nos. 4 to 7, who have been promoted in terms of the Recruitment Rules of 1979 to continue in the posts without :: 19 :: T.A. No. 61/2577/2020 prejudice to the petitioners' seniority as Laboratory Assistants, so promoted. Respondents/ Competent Authority are directed to convene a Review DPC for consideration of the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Laboratory Assistant on the analogy which has been applied to the respondent nos. 4 to 7 with all consequential benefits by treating the petitioners became eligible for promotion prior to 2008 under the Recruitment Rules, 1979 from the date when juniors were promoted.
The said exercised shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/JNS/
Jay Narayan Digitally
signed by Jay
Singh Narayan Singh