Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Dr Hema Gandotra vs University Of Jammu on 26 December, 2025
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 410/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 410/2025
Reserved on: - 18.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 26.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Dr. Hema Gandotra, Age 46 years, D/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Gandotra,
W/o Sh. Vikas Jandial, R/o 156, Main Road, New Plot, Jammu-
180002.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - M.A. Bhat)
Versus
1. University of Jammu through its Registrar, Jammu-180006.
2. Vice-Chancellor, University of Jammu, Jammu-180006.
3. Head of Department of Sociology, University of Jammu, Jammu-
180006.
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 410/2025
4. Director, Directorate of Internal Quality Assurance Cell (DIQA),
University of Jammu-180006.
5. Registrar, University of Jammu-180006.
6. Joint Registrar, Teaching Wing, University of Jammu (Member
Secretary)-180006.
(Respondent No.4 to 6 Members of the Committee for Counting Past
Services in certain cases)
7. Dr. Sapna Sharma, D/o Late Sh. Darshan Kumar Sharma, C/o
Department of Sociology, University of Jammu, Jammu-180006.
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajnish Raina & Mr. Rahul Pant)
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 410/2025
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) Allow the instant Original Application and may be pleased to-
b) order quashing of the Minutes of Meeting held by the respondents on 22.03.2025 and 23.03.2025 (both holidays) so far as the minutes pertain to the recommendation of the respondent No.7 for promotion(s) under CAS w.e.f.
07.08.2006; and may also be pleased to;
c) Restrain the respondents from acting upon the illegal, unconstitutional recommendation of the Committee as contained at S.No.5 of the impugned Minutes of Meeting pertaining to respondent No.7 and not to issue any final order of promotion/s in pursuance to these minutes and the recommendation contained therein regarding the promotion of the respondent No.7 and may also be pleased to;
d) Issue direction restraining the respondents No.1 to 3 from promoting the respondent No.7 over and above the applicant by ignoring the seniority of the applicant and also restraining them from conferring any illegal and undue benefit upon HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 4 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 respondent No.7 detrimental to the rights of the applicant pursuant to Constitution of Committee for "Counting the Past Services of certain Cases" and further restraining respondent No.1 to 3 from adopting any mode, method or procedure of promotion which is aimed at unsettling the settled seniority of the applicant as against the respondent No.7 as agreed by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No.1898/2020 and may also be pleased to--
e) Issue any other order or direction deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in her pleadings are as follows: -
a) The applicant is presently serving as an Assistant Professor (Academic Level-II) in the Department of Sociology, University of Jammu. Her grievance in the present Original Application arises out of the action of the respondent-
University in constituting a Committee for "Counting of Past Services in certain cases" and the recommendations made by the said Committee in its meetings held on 22.03.2025 and 23.03.2025, whereby the past service rendered by respondent No.7, Dr. Sapna Sharma, on a tenure post has been HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 5 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 recommended to be counted for grant of promotions under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) with effect from 07.08.2006.
b) Respondent No.7 was initially appointed as Lecturer (Sociology) on a tenure post for a period of two years on contractual basis vide order dated 07.08.2006, in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500. The applicant was similarly appointed on a tenure post as Lecturer (Sociology) vide order dated 31.08.2007. Prior to her tenure appointment, the applicant had already been rendering services in the Department of Sociology on consolidated basis from the year 2002 to 2006.
c) The tenure appointments of both the applicant and respondent No.7 were extended from time to time pursuant to Resolution No. 67.140 of the University Council, till such time the posts were sanctioned by the University Grants Commission (UGC). During the 11th Plan period, the UGC sanctioned twelve regular posts of Assistant Professors to the University of Jammu, out of which one post was allocated to the Department of Sociology. These sanctioned posts were advertised vide Notice dated 12.09.2011 and a regular selection process was conducted. HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 6 :: O.A. No. 410/2025
d) Both the applicant and respondent No.7 participated in the said selection process. The applicant was duly selected by a properly constituted Selection Committee and was appointed as Assistant Professor on substantive basis vide order dated 28.11.2011. Respondent No.7, despite participation, failed to secure selection. Subsequently, when another vacancy of Assistant Professor arose in the year 2013 and was again advertised, respondent No.7 appeared once more but was again not recommended by the Selection Committee.
e) The applicant thereafter progressed in her career in accordance with the UGC Regulations. She was granted placement as Assistant Professor (Stage-II) under CAS with effect from 29.11.2011, subsequently placed in Academic Level-II with effect from 29.11.2016, and later granted further CAS advancement as Associate Professor vide order dated 06.03.2025. Her past service on tenure basis was counted for CAS strictly in accordance with UGC Regulations, as she had entered the permanent cadre through a valid process of direct recruitment.
HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 7 :: O.A. No. 410/2025
f) Respondent No.7, on the other hand, continued to work against the tenure post until 10.11.2020. Her case for regularization was considered by various authorities including the Financial Advisor (Universities), who opined that any regularization could only be prospective and not as a matter of right under statutory provisions. Ultimately, relying upon Resolution No. 80.20 passed in the 80th meeting of the Kashmir University Council dated 05.06.2020, the respondent-University issued an order dated 10.11.2020 whereby respondent No.7 was shifted from tenure to Revenue (Non-Plan) as Assistant Professor, Sociology, subject to probation and governed by the New Pension Scheme, with a stipulation that her past service shall be counted for placement/promotion as per UGC norms.
g) Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant challenged the action of the University before the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 1898/2020. During the course of hearing, the University categorically stated before the Hon'ble High Court that respondent No.7 would remain junior to the applicant and that her past tenure service would not be counted for seniority purposes. On the basis of this clear stand, the writ petition was HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 8 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 disposed of on 14.09.2023, holding that the apprehension of the applicant regarding seniority stood adequately addressed.
h) Despite the aforesaid categorical stand and judicial pronouncement, the respondent-University thereafter constituted a Committee which met on 22.03.2025 and 23.03.2025 and recommended that respondent No.7 be granted CAS promotions by counting her tenure service retrospectively from 07.08.2006. The applicant's representation dated 20.03.2025 opposing such action was rejected by the Committee. The minutes of the meeting, obtained by the applicant under the RTI Act, revealed that the recommendation would have the effect of enabling respondent No.7 to secure accelerated promotions and potentially supersede the applicant, thereby unsettling settled seniority and promotional prospects.
i) Apprehending serious prejudice, violation of statutory provisions, and breach of the stand taken before the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking quashment of the impugned minutes and restraint against the respondents from acting upon the same.
HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 9 :: O.A. No. 410/2025
3. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have filed their reply contesting the Original Application primarily on the grounds of maintainability, prematurity, and alleged misinterpretation of statutory provisions by the applicant. It is submitted that the impugned minutes of the Committee are merely recommendatory in nature and no final order granting CAS promotion to respondent No.7 has yet been issued by the competent authority. On this ground alone, the respondents contend that the Original Application is premature.
b) The respondents submit that respondent No.7 has been continuously serving the University since 07.08.2006, initially on a tenure post and thereafter against Revenue (Non-Plan), and her services have been duly regularized vide order dated 10.11.2020 in accordance with Resolution No. 80.20.
c) The respondents further contend that the Hon'ble High Court has clearly observed that both the applicant and respondent No.7 are entitled to counting of past service for placement and promotion under CAS as per UGC norms. According to the HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 10 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 respondents, the issue of counting past service stands settled and cannot be re-agitated indirectly before this Tribunal, being barred by principles analogous to res judicata.
d) It is pleaded that the applicant herself was granted CAS promotions by counting her past tenure service rendered prior to her substantive appointment, and therefore, she cannot object to extension of similar benefit to respondent No.7. The respondents submit that denying CAS benefit to respondent No.7 would amount to hostile discrimination and violation of UGC Regulations.
e) The respondents explain that a controversy arose during scrutiny of respondent No.7's CAS application by the Screening Committee regarding counting of tenure service, which necessitated constitution of a higher Committee. The Committee examined the matter in the light of Regulation 10.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010 and opined that respondent No.7 is prima facie entitled to CAS promotion from 07.08.2006, subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions.
f) It is specifically denied that the applicant's seniority is being disturbed. According to the respondents, CAS promotion does HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 11 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 not automatically alter inter se seniority and the applicant's apprehension is speculative. Reliance is placed upon Regulation 16.3 of the UGC Regulations to contend that seniority between direct recruits and CAS promotees is governed by different parameters.
g) The respondents also submit that the University has adopted a consistent approach in similar cases, including that of Dr. Ghulam Nabi Badar of the University of Kashmir, where past tenure service was counted for CAS promotions. The respondents assert that the Committee has acted bonafide, within its jurisdiction, and strictly in accordance with UGC Regulations, and that there is no arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference by this Tribunal.
h) Accordingly, the respondents pray for dismissal of the Original Application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking quashment of the Minutes of Meeting dated 22.03.2025 and 23.03.2025 insofar as HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 12 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 they relate to respondent No.7, restraint against acting upon the said recommendations for grant of CAS promotions with effect from 07.08.2006, protection of applicant's seniority, and such other relief as deemed just and proper.
6. Respondent No.7 was appointed as Lecturer (Sociology) on a tenure post on contractual basis vide order dated 07.08.2006. The applicant was similarly appointed on a tenure post vide order dated 31.08.2007, after having served on consolidated basis from 2002 to 2006. Both tenure appointments were extended pursuant to Resolution No. 67.140 of the University Council.
7. During the 11th Plan, twelve posts of Assistant Professor were sanctioned by the UGC, one of which was allocated to the Department of Sociology. These posts were advertised in 2011. Both the applicant and respondent No.7 participated. The applicant was selected and appointed as Assistant Professor on substantive basis on 28.11.2011, whereas respondent No.7 was not selected. Respondent No.7 again participated in a subsequent selection in 2013 but was again not recommended.
8. The applicant progressed under CAS in accordance with UGC Regulations, culminating in her placement as Associate Professor. HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 13 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 Respondent No.7 continued on tenure basis until 10.11.2020, when, pursuant to Resolution No. 80.20 dated 05.06.2020, she was shifted to Revenue (Non-Plan) and appointed as Assistant Professor, with a stipulation that her past service shall be counted for placement/promotion as per UGC norms.
9. The applicant challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 1898/2020. During hearing, the University categorically stated that respondent No.7 would remain junior to the applicant and that tenure service would not count for seniority. On this assurance, the writ petition was disposed of on 14.09.2023.
10. Subsequently, a Committee was constituted to consider counting of past services. The Committee, in its meetings dated 22.03.2025 and 23.03.2025, recommended that respondent No.7 be granted CAS promotions w.e.f. 07.08.2006. The applicant's representation opposing such recommendation was rejected. Apprehending adverse impact on her seniority and promotional prospects, the applicant approached this Tribunal.
11. The applicant contended that respondent No.7 was never appointed through a valid selection process to a sanctioned post and had failed twice in regular selections. Counting her tenure service for CAS HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 14 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 would violate UGC Regulations and University Statutes and would directly contradict the stand taken by the University before the Hon'ble High Court. The respondents, it was argued, are estopped from unsettling settled seniority.
12. The respondents contended that the OA is premature, as the impugned minutes are recommendatory. It was argued that both the applicant and respondent No.7 are entitled to counting of past service for CAS, that similar benefit was extended to the applicant, and that CAS promotions do not ipso facto alter seniority. Reliance was placed on UGC Regulations, including Regulation 16.3.
13. We have noticed that the respondent-University itself mentioned in the order that the past services rendered by the private respondent shall be counted for placement/promotion as per UGC norms. Though the Kashmir University Resolution 80.20 is completely silent with regard to counting of past service of private respondent for placement/promotion and also when the regularization matter of private respondent was earlier placed before the Kashmir University Council in its 79th meeting which was held on 10.04.2018 vide item No.79.23, it was suggested that the case may be referred to Financial Advisor (Universities) who conveyed its opinion on 29.08.2018 HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 15 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 whereby it was suggested that the University could consider the regularization against available vacancy or an additional permanent vacancy which could be created, however, such arrangement is based on mere past practice and not based on Statute and such arrangement should be prospective. Accordingly, after receiving the opinion of Financial Advisor the matter was submitted to University Syndicate for consideration against one of the vacant posts prospectively and thereafter the matter was deliberated in Kashmir University Council meeting held on 05.06.2020 and vide Resolution No.80.20 the case of private respondent for regularization was recommended. Since already the Financial Advisor and University Syndicate has opined the regularization of private respondent prospectively as such there was no mention in the Resolution to count the previous service of private respondent but it seems that the University on its own granted the benefit of past contractual service while issuing the appointment/regularization order dated 10.11.2020 in favour of private respondent.
14. The Judgment dated 14.09.2023 passed by Hon'ble High Court Jammu and Kashmir in WP(C) No.1893/2020 is not based upon considering various provisions of Jammu University Statute and UGC HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 16 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 Regulation. Since the University took categoric stand before the Hon'ble High Court that previous service of private respondent does not affect the seniority of applicant as such the Hon'ble High Court did not render any finding on the appointment of private respondent and held that it would be an academic exercise only in view of stand taken by the University and thus did not issue any directions to the respondent-University. It seems that Regulation XIII(e) of Jammu University Statute and UGC Regulation 10.0 have not been brought into the notice of the Hon'ble High Court. On one hand the Hon'ble High Court in para 15 is holding that the applicant as well as private respondent, both are entitled for counting of their past service for the purpose of placement/promotion in higher grades in terms of UGC norms but on the other hand the Hon'ble High Court in paragraph 16 of the Judgment stated as under: -
"16. It is specifically stated by the respondent-University that for the purpose of seniority, the past service on a tenure post is not to be taken into account and it is for this reason that the petitioner has been ranked senior to respondent No.4 in the seniority list. This takes care of the HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 17 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 apprehension of the petitioner so far as the seniority position is concerned."
Thus, in view of para 16 of the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court, the respondents cannot be allowed to say that after conferring the benefit of CAS promotion to the private respondent, the seniority issue will be considered thereafter.
15. The Tribunal examined Chapter III of the Jammu University Calendar, 2010 and Regulation 10.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 governing counting of past service, along with the statutory requirement that permanent posts of Assistant Professor must be filled through direct recruitment following due advertisement and selection.
16. It is crystal clear in the order of Hon'ble High Court that the stand taken by the University that the past service of private respondent shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority and it is for this reason the applicant has been ranked senior to private respondent in the seniority list and in light of the stand taken by the University before the Hon'ble High Court with regard to counting of past service of private respondent and the position of seniority vis-à- vis the applicant and private respondent, the Hon'ble High Court held HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 18 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 that no directions are required to be issued to the respondent University in the writ petition. Relevant paragraphs of the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court dated 14.09.2023 passed in writ petition bearing WP(C) No.1898/2020 is reproduced herein below: -
"9. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the grievance of the petitioner in respect of impugned order dated 10.11.2020 is confined to counting of past service of respondent No.4 as this would mean that the said respondent, who was appointed on a tenure post prior to the appointment of the petitioner, would steal a march over her in the matter of seniority.
10. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent- University has submitted that so far as counting of past service rendered by respondent No. 4 in the University is concerned, it is clearly stated in the impugned order dated 10.11.2020 that the same shall be counted only for placement promotion as per UGC norms and it has nothing do so with the issue relating to the inter se seniority of the petitioner and respondent No.4.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has submitted that the seniority list issued by the respondent- University clearly shows that the petitioner has been placed in the seniority list much higher than respondent No. 4 and in the seniority list, the date of appointment of the petitioner is shown as the date on which she has been appointed on substantive basis, whereas date of appointment of respondent No. 4 has HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 19 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 been shown as the date on which her services have been regularized by shifting of tenure post towards Revenue (Non- Plan). The learned counsel has also submitted that even in the case of the petitioner, the past services rendered by her in the University on tenure post were also counted for placement promotion in terms of UGC norms.
14. However, the apprehension of the petitioner that by counting past services rendered by respondent No.4 in the University in terms of impugned order dated 10.11.2020, she may be ranked senior to her in the seniority list, has been taken care of by the stand taken by the respondent-University. As already stated that the respondent-University has categorically taken a stand that the date of appointment of respondent No.4 is 10.11.2020, the date on which the impugned order was issued but her services rendered in the University are to be counted only for placement promotion as per UGC Norms. In fact similar treatment was given to the petitioner when she was substantively appointed but the past services rendered by her on tenure post were counted by the respondent-University for the purpose of placement promotion in terms of UGC norms. Thus, the petitioner cannot have any grievance as to why, similar treatment has been given to respondent No.4.
16. It is specifically stated by the respondent-University that for the purpose of seniority, the past service on a tenure post is not to be taken into account and it is for this reason that the petitioner has been ranked senior to respondent No.4 in the HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 20 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 seniority list. This takes care of the apprehension of the petitioner so far as the seniority position is concerned.
17. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in light of the stand taken by the respondent-University in their reply as indicated above as regards counting of past services of respondent No. 4 and the position of seniority vis a vis petitioner and respondent No.4. Thus, no directions are required to be issued to the respondent-University in this writ petition."
17. The respondent-University initially acknowledged the seniority of the applicant but now they are intending to give benefit to private respondent indirectly who has failed in the selection processes, by counting her contractual service on tenure post. The intention of university raises question about fairness. In our opinion the counting of past service of private respondent would give her edge over the applicant in the matter of promotions as well as seniority. Had the matter confined to grant of CAS promotion only with a rider that it will not give undue advantage to private respondent for further promotion to the next higher post and seniority, the matter would have been different but from the pleadings and arguments of respondent it would give an impression that after the grant of CAS promotion to the private respondent, the promotion prospects of applicant to the post of HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 21 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 Professor and seniority would be prejudiced and the private respondent would rank senior than her and also would steal march over applicant in the matter of promotion to the post of Professor for the simple reason that she will be conferring the said benefit of CAS from Stage-I to Stage-II, Stage-II to Stage-III (Associate Professor), CAS promotion to the post of Associate Professor and thereafter to the post of Professor ahead of applicant and effect with prior dates. Thus the case projected by the respondent is not so simple that it is confined to CAS promotion up to the Stage-I to II and Stage-II to III only. It has further repercussion. Once the private respondent would get the said benefit, she would claim other benefits over and above the applicant in the matter of promotion as well as seniority, thus the instant O.A is not premature. There is no substance in the plea of respondents that the Committee has been recommended in the case of private respondent and no subsequent order has been issued yet. The Committee has already rejected the representation of applicant as stated by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the University.
18. The Jammu University Statute and UGC Regulations pertaining to Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) do not permit counting previous contractual service on tenure post for promotion purposes, especially HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 22 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 when an individual has failed in the selection process. Promoting a junior who has failed in selection process over a senior and meritorious candidate is discriminatory and arbitrary. This lacks a rational basis and violates principle of fairness and equality. The University's initial acknowledgment with regard to seniority of the applicant created a legitimate expectation that she will be considered for promotion and seniority over and above the private respondent and the proposed action of the University undermines this expectation which is unfair. The decision taken by the Committee in its meeting held on 22.03.2025 and 23.03.2025 and recommendations in favour of private respondents is lacking a rational basis and undermines the principles of fairness and meritocracy. It will amount to punishing the applicant for being meritorious and passing successfully selection process initiated for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor by an advertisement Notification invited by the University and on the other hand would amount to rewarding private respondent for her failure and less merit who was found unsuitable twice for the said post which was advertised by the University in the year 2011 and 2013 and she continued to discharge her duties on contractual basis against the tenure post which was not sanctioned by the University HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 23 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 Grants Commission until her services was regularized vide order dated 10.11.2020.
19. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant's application for promotion to the post of Professor despite her eligibility and availability of vacancy is not being considered on the pretext that once the consequential order of promotion is issued in favour of private respondent pursuant to the impugned recommendations of the Committee and based upon such promotions they are intending to promote the private respondent over and above the applicant as Professor.
20. Though the validity of appointment order of private respondent dated 10.11.2020 in which it is also provided that the previous contractual services of private respondent shall be counted for purpose of CAS promotion under UGC norms is not under challenge before us but we cannot shut our eyes to the injustice which is meted out to applicant and in the peculiar facts of the case, the relief sought in the O.A can be moulded.
21. It stands admitted that respondent No.7 was not appointed to the permanent cadre through a valid selection process and had failed twice in direct recruitment. The Financial Advisor had earlier opined HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 24 :: O.A. No. 410/2025 that any regularization could only be prospective and not under Statute. The Hon'ble High Court judgment dated 14.09.2023 specifically records the University's stand that tenure service would not count for seniority.
22. Granting CAS promotions to respondent No.7 by counting tenure service from 2006 would inevitably enable her to supersede the applicant in further promotions, including to the post of Professor, thereby nullifying the assurance given to the applicant and accepted by the High Court. Regulation 16.3 of UGC is held inapplicable to the present facts.
23. Counting of past tenure service of respondent No.7 for CAS promotions is contrary to UGC Regulations and University Statutes, violative of fairness and merit, and would result in manifest injustice to the applicant. The respondents are bound by their stand before the Hon'ble High Court and cannot now act to the prejudice of the applicant.
24. Accordingly, the OA is allowed with the following directions: -
a) Minutes of the meeting held on 22.03.2025 & 23.03.2025 are quashed to the extent it pertains to the recommendation of promotion of Respondent No. 07 under CAS w.e.f., 07.08.2006.
HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 25 :: O.A. No. 410/2025
b) The applicant is entitled to be considered and promoted to the post of Professor, Sociology, University of Jammu, ahead of respondent No.7, as per the existing rules.
c) Respondent No.1 shall consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Professor forthwith.
d) The exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
e) No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV