Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Bua Ditta vs Directorate Of School Education Ut Of ... on 16 March, 2026
:: 1 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 2447/2020 & OA 1474/2022
Reserved on: - 02.12.2025
Pronounced on: - 16.03.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. TA/2447/2020
Bua Ditta Age- 55 years S/o Thoru Ram R/o Village Budhi Tehsil
and District Kathua.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Rohit Verma)
Versus
1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner-
cum-Secretary to the Government Education Department, Civil
Secretariat Jammu.
2. Director School Education, Jammu.
3. Dev Raj (10+2) Lecturer in English discipline.
4. Hem Raj(10+2) Lecturer in English discipline.
5. Gouri Ram (10+2) Lecturer in English discipline.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. AAG)
2. OA/1474/2022
Bua Ditta Age- 55 years S/o Thoru Ram R/o Village Budhi Tehsil
and District Kathua.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Rohit Verma)
Versus
1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner-
cum-Secretary to the Government Education Department, Civil
Secretariat Jammu/ Kashmir. Pin code: 180007
2. Director School Education Department, Muthi Jammu. Pin Code:-
180007
3. Dev Raj, Principal, Govt. higher secondary School Batote District
Ramban. Pin Code: 182144
4. Hem Raj, Pricipal Govt. Higher Secondary School Top Neel
District Doda. Pin code:182202
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.4206/2019 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.2447/2020 along with OA No. 1474/2022 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
TA/2447/2020
a) "Certiorari for the quashment of the order no.
Edu/Legal/J/Misc./244/2017 Dated 19-08-2019 issued by the respondent no.1 vides which the case of the petitioner seeking seniority as (10+2) lecturer in School Education Department in English discipline w.e.f. 21-01-2004 i.e. the date when petitioner was placed as I/c (10+2) Lecturer in School Education Department was rejected by the respondent no.1 in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner.
b) Certiorari for the quashment of the order no. 34-Edu- of 2013 dated 14-01-2013 issued by the respondent no.1 qua the respondent no. 3, 4 and 5 vides which the respondent no.3 and 4 were given seniority as (10+2) Lecturer in School Education Department in English discipline notionally w.e.f. 08-07-2005, respondent no. 5 was given seniority as (10+2) Lecturer in School Education Department in English Discipline notionally w.e.f. 12-08-2003 and on regular basis w.e.f.07-11-2007.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022
c) Mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner as (10+2) Lecturer in School Education Department from the date petitioner was placed as I/c (10+2) Lecturer in School Education Department i.e w.e.f. 21-01-2004.
d) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
OA/1474/2022 a. For quashing the Government Order no. 2061 EDU of 2022 dated 13/08/2022 as junior to the applicant and are placed at higher post by virtue of transfer order in violation of Rule 25 of the CCA Rules and reservation policy of the J&K UT and applicants being senior is ignored and order impugned is passed without following the reservation rules and is in violation of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. b. The respondents may kindly be directed to provide similar treatment to the applicant and promote the applicant to the post of the Principal being senior to the private respondents and by following the reservation in promotion.
c. That the respondents are further directed to collect the quantifiable data, follow the reservation rules for promotion and give roster point to the applicant reserved for SC category and promote the applicant as Principal.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022
a) The applicant, Bua Ditta, was initially appointed as a Teacher in the School Education Department on 23.10.1989 and continued to serve in the department in that capacity. During the course of service, the applicant acquired higher qualifications, namely Post-Graduation in English in the year 2000/2001 and B.Ed. in the year 2003, thereby becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer under the applicable recruitment rules.
b) In January 2004, the Government issued promotion orders placing eligible teachers as In-charge (10+2) Lecturers in their own pay and grade. Vide Government Order No. 81-Edu of 2004 dated 21.01.2004, the applicant was placed as In-charge Lecturer in English against an available vacancy along with other eligible teachers. The applicant asserts that he fulfilled all eligibility conditions on that date and was entitled to consequential seniority benefits from the said placement.
c) Prior to this, another order dated 06.01.2004 had promoted certain teachers as In-charge Lecturers. According to the applicant, due to a typographical duplication of one candidate's name in that list, he could not be accommodated in the earlier HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022 order and was subsequently placed through the order dated 21.01.2004.
d) Thereafter, private respondents namely Dev Raj, Hem Raj and Gouri Ram, who also belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, acquired Post-Graduation qualifications later during service and were placed as In-charge Lecturers much subsequently vide Government Order dated 07.11.2007, nearly four years after the applicant's placement.
e) The Government later issued Government Order No. 34-Edu of 2013 dated 14.01.2013 whereby services of 237 In-charge Lecturers were regularized as Lecturers (English). The applicant was regularized as Lecturer with effect from 07.11.2007. However, the private respondents were granted notional seniority from earlier dates, namely 12.08.2003 and 08.07.2005 respectively, thereby placing them senior to the applicant despite their later placement as In-charge Lecturers.
f) Aggrieved by fixation of seniority, the applicant filed SWP No. 1236/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court seeking refixation of seniority from 21.01.2004, the date of his placement as In-
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022 charge Lecturer. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 19.05.2017 directing the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's representation by a speaking order.
g) Pursuant thereto, the department examined the matter but rejected the applicant's claim vide Government Order dated 19.08.2019 holding that the applicant was junior to the private respondents and was not entitled to seniority from the earlier date. Challenging the said rejection order as well as the seniority granted to private respondents under Government Order dated 14.01.2013, the applicant filed writ petition WP(C) No. 4206/2019 before the High Court, which later stood transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA No. 2447/2020.
h) During pendency of the dispute, the Government issued Order No. 2061-Edu of 2022 dated 13.08.2022 whereby certain junior officers, including the private respondents, were placed to look after the higher post of Principal through transfer arrangements. The applicant, claiming seniority and entitlement under reservation in promotion, challenged the said order by filing HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022 OA No. 1474/2022 alleging violation of reservation rules, CCA Rules, and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16.
i) The applicant contends that denial of seniority from 21.01.2004 and consequential promotional benefits has resulted in juniors superseding him and adversely affecting his service career, especially when he is nearing retirement.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents filed objections resisting the claim of the applicant and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the application. It is contended that no legal or fundamental right of the applicant has been violated and that the application is based upon misinterpretation of service rules and incorrect factual assumptions.
b) The respondents submit that the applicant had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court through SWP No. 1236/2017 seeking refixation of seniority from 21.01.2004, and in compliance with the High Court's direction dated HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022 19.05.2017, the department examined the matter in accordance with applicable rules and passed a speaking order dated 19.08.2019 rejecting the claim.
c) It is stated that although the applicant was placed as In-charge Lecturer on 21.01.2004, his regularization as Lecturer was governed by norms relating to availability of vacancies, eligibility and inter-se seniority as prescribed under Government Order No. 743-GAD of 2007. Accordingly, the applicant was regularized with effect from 07.11.2007 along with others similarly situated.
d) The respondents assert that the private respondents were senior to the applicant in the feeder cadre and occupied higher positions in the seniority list. As per departmental records, the applicant stood much lower in seniority compared to private respondents who were working in the Masters cadre, whereas the applicant belonged to the Teacher category. Since recruitment rules provide promotion primarily from Masters and only thereafter from Teachers, the private respondents were rightly accorded seniority and consequential benefits.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022
e) It is further submitted that regularization orders issued in 2013 were strictly based upon eligibility, availability of vacancies and seniority position reflected in the eligibility list prepared by the department. The applicant cannot claim parity with officers senior to him nor seek retrospective regularization merely on the basis of officiating placement.
f) According to the respondents, the claim of the applicant amounts to seeking seniority over his seniors without any legal justification. The impugned order dated 19.08.2019 was passed after proper examination of service records and in conformity with applicable rules, and therefore does not suffer from arbitrariness or illegality.
g) With regard to the challenge raised in OA No. 1474/2022, the respondents maintain that temporary arrangements assigning higher responsibilities were administrative in nature and did not confer any substantive right of promotion. The applicant has no vested right to claim promotion to the post of Principal merely on the basis of seniority, and reservation rules and service regulations were duly followed.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022
h) On these grounds, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the applications as being devoid of merit.
5. In the rejoinder to the reply statement, the applicant has averred as follows: -
a) In the rejoinder filed to the reply submitted by the respondents, the applicant has reiterated the averments made in the original application and denied the stand taken by the respondents to the extent it is contrary to record and law. The applicant submits that the reply filed by the respondents proceeds on incorrect assumptions regarding applicability of rules governing seniority and promotion.
b) The applicant submits that the respondents have wrongly relied upon Government Order No. 743-GAD of 2007 to justify denial of seniority benefits, whereas the issue of seniority is governed by statutory service rules, particularly Rule 24 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Rules, which provide that seniority is to be determined with reference to the date of first substantive appointment or placement against a clear vacancy.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022 According to the applicant, executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions governing service conditions.
c) It is further contended that once vacancies were available and the applicant possessed requisite eligibility, the respondents could not legally defer his substantive promotion or deny consequential seniority. The applicant asserts that he was placed as In-charge Lecturer on 21.01.2004 against an available vacancy and, therefore, his seniority ought to have been reckoned from that date. The failure of the department to regularize him from the said date, despite availability of posts, has adversely affected his promotional prospects without any fault on his part.
d) The applicant disputes the contention of the respondents that private respondents were senior to him. It is submitted that the respondents have not clearly explained the basis on which such seniority was determined. According to the applicant, granting notional promotion to private respondents from dates when they were not even holding the post of In-charge Lecturer is arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022
e) The applicant further submits that denial of seniority has resulted in grave prejudice, as juniors have been allowed to supersede him in service and secure higher promotional avenues. The applicant emphasizes that his claim is not for undue advantage but only for fixation of seniority from the date he was actually placed in charge of the higher post against a clear vacancy.
f) It is also argued that reservation rules and roster provisions were not properly followed by the respondents, resulting in distortion of seniority and promotional benefits within the Scheduled Caste category. The applicant maintains that adherence to the running roster and applicable reservation rules was mandatory and failure to follow the same has caused discrimination against him.
g) The applicant reiterates that the impugned order rejecting his representation is arbitrary, non-speaking, and passed without proper application of mind. According to him, the department failed to consider relevant statutory provisions and ignored HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022 material facts demonstrating his entitlement to seniority from 21.01.2004.
h) In conclusion, the applicant submits that the respondents have unjustifiably withheld his rightful seniority and consequential benefits despite his eligibility and availability of vacancies at the relevant time. The applicant accordingly prays that his seniority be refixed from the date of his placement as In-charge Lecturer and that the impugned orders be set aside with all consequential benefits.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. The present matter arises out of SWP No. 4206/2019 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir which, upon constitution of this Tribunal, stood transferred and registered as T.A. No. 2447/2020 along with connected O.A. No. 1474/2022. Since both matters arise out of the same service dispute relating to fixation of seniority and consequential promotional benefits, they are being decided together by this common order.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022
8. The applicant was appointed as a Teacher in the School Education Department on 23.10.1989 and continued to serve the department with an unblemished record. During service, he acquired the qualification of Post-Graduation in English in the year 2000/2001 and thereafter completed B.Ed. in the year 2003, thereby becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer under the applicable recruitment rules.
9. Vide Government Order No. 81-Edu of 2004 dated 21.01.2004, the applicant was placed as In-charge (10+2) Lecturer in English in his own pay and grade against an available vacancy. The record shows that the applicant possessed the requisite qualification on the said date and was duly assigned the duties of the higher post.
10. Subsequently, certain private respondents were placed as In-charge Lecturers much later vide Government Order dated 07.11.2007. However, while issuing Government Order No. 34-Edu of 2013 dated 14.01.2013, the department regularized services of various In-charge Lecturers and granted notional seniority to private respondents from earlier dates, thereby placing them senior to the applicant, though they had been placed as In-charge Lecturers after him.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022
11. Aggrieved, the applicant earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court through SWP No. 1236/2017. The High Court disposed of the petition on 19.05.2017 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant by passing a speaking order. The respondents thereafter rejected the claim vide order dated 19.08.2019 holding that the applicant was junior to private respondents.
12. The applicant challenged the said rejection as well as grant of retrospective seniority to private respondents. During pendency of the dispute, juniors were further placed to look after the post of Principal, which led to filing of O.A. No. 1474/2022 alleging continued supersession and denial of promotional benefits.
13. The respondents contend that the applicant was regularized strictly in accordance with availability of vacancies, eligibility and seniority norms under Government Order No. 743-GAD of 2007. It is argued that private respondents were senior in the feeder cadre and belonged to the Masters category, whereas the applicant was promoted from the Teacher cadre, and therefore their seniority was rightly fixed above the applicant. It is further pleaded that placement as In-charge HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022 Lecturer does not automatically confer seniority and that the applicant cannot claim retrospective benefits merely on officiating basis.
14. The applicant submits that once he was placed as In-charge Lecturer against a clear vacancy and possessed requisite eligibility, his seniority must relate back to the date of such placement. He contends that statutory service rules governing seniority cannot be overridden by executive instructions and that juniors cannot be granted notional promotion from dates when they were not even holding the post.
15. It is an admitted position on record that:
the applicant possessed required qualification prior to 21.01.2004;
he was placed as In-charge Lecturer against an available vacancy;
he continuously discharged duties of the higher post thereafter.
16. The core question is whether such placement carries seniority consequences. Service jurisprudence consistently recognizes that where an employee is placed in charge of a higher post against a clear vacancy and continues to work thereon, subsequent regularization ordinarily relates back to the date of such placement, provided HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022 eligibility existed. The rationale is simple -- an employee who actually performs duties of a higher post cannot be placed below persons who assumed charge later.
17. In the present case, private respondents were admittedly placed as In-
charge Lecturers only in the year 2007, whereas the applicant assumed such charge in January 2004. Granting them notional seniority from dates prior to their holding of the post creates an artificial seniority position unsupported by factual service history.
18. The respondents' reliance on Government Order No. 743-GAD of 2007 does not advance their case. Executive instructions cannot override settled principles governing determination of seniority, particularly when they produce discriminatory consequences. Seniority cannot be altered merely by administrative convenience when the employee had already entered the promotional stream earlier.
19. The record further shows that the applicant satisfied eligibility conditions and vacancies were available. Delay in regularization was entirely attributable to departmental action and not to any fault of the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022 applicant. An employee cannot be made to suffer loss of seniority because the administration delayed formal orders.
20. The Tribunal also finds merit in the contention that notional promotions granted to private respondents from dates when they were not even holding the post offend basic principles of fairness and equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
21. Once the applicant was placed as In-charge Lecturer on 21.01.2004 against a clear vacancy, his service on the promotional post commenced from that date for purposes of seniority.
22. For the reasons discussed above, this Tribunal holds that denial of seniority to the applicant from the date of his placement as In-charge Lecturer is arbitrary, unjustified and legally unsustainable.
23. Accordingly, T.A. No. 2447/2020 and O.A. No. 1474/2022 are allowed with the following directions:
a) The impugned order dated 19.08.2019 rejecting the claim of the applicant is hereby quashed.
b) The respondents shall refix the seniority of the applicant as Lecturer (English) with effect from 21.01.2004, i.e., the date on which he was placed as In-charge Lecturer.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 ::TA 2447/2020 Along with OA 1474/2022
c) Consequential seniority benefits shall be extended to the applicant and his position in the seniority list shall be revised accordingly vis-à-vis private respondents.
d) The applicant shall be considered for all consequential promotions, including promotion to higher posts such as Senior Lecturer and Principal, from the date his immediate junior was considered, with all notional benefits.
e) The applicant shall be entitled to notional pay fixation and service benefits from the due dates. Monetary benefits shall be restricted to a period of three years preceding the filing of the petition, in accordance with settled service law principles (Jai Dev Gupta v. State of H.P. and Another (AIR 1998 SC 2819).
f) Necessary orders shall be issued within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
24. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV