Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Nasir Ahmed vs D/O Health And Medical Education Ut Of ... on 12 December, 2025
:: 1 :: TA 3661/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 3661/2020
Reserved on: - 23.07.2025
Pronounced on: - 12.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Nasir Ahmed aged 48 years S/O Sh. Abdul Qayoom R/O Village Latti
Distt- Udhampur
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Dhiraj Chowdhary)
Versus
1. State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary, to Govt. Health &
Medical Education Department Civil Secretariat Srinagar
2. Director Health Services, jammu
3. Chief Medical Officer, Udhampur
4. Abdul Gafoor Basic Health Worker R/O Keya, Tehsil Ramnagar,
Distt Udhampur
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Ld. AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 3661/2020
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.1279/2018 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.3661/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) "An appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of quo warranto thereby quashing the order impugned no.274 NG of 2018 dated 09-04-18 to the extent it promotes the private respondent no.4 as Junior Health Inspector under O.S.C category from the post of Basic Health Instructor;
b) An appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus thereby commanding the official respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Junior Health Inspector under RBA category w.e.f 09-04-18 notionally w.e.f 01-07-17 alongwith all consequential benefits;
c) Or this Honble court may issue any other order or direction to which the petitioner is held entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
a) The petitioner Nasir Ahmed, a resident of District Udhampur, was initially engaged as a Class-IV employee on adhoc basis in HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 3 :: TA 3661/2020 1987 in Allopathic Dispensary Latti, and was later regularized vide Government Order No. 319-MHME of 1994 w.e.f.
11.09.1989. Under the Jammu & Kashmir Health and Medical (Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules), 1992 (SRO 20 of 1992), Class-IV employees possessing matriculation with five years' service become eligible for promotion to the post of Basic Health Worker (BHW). The petitioner, fulfilling these requirements, was promoted as BHW in 2007 under the General Category.
b) A final seniority list of BHWs for District Udhampur was issued on 01.01.2013, in which the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 13 under the RBA category. Respondent No. 4, Abdul Gafoor, was shown at Serial No. 18 under OSC category, although according to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 actually belongs to RBA category and had already taken benefit of RBA reservation when he was promoted from Class-IV to BHW in 2007. The petitioner contended that as per Section 19 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, a candidate can claim benefit of only one reserved category either at entry level or at promotion, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 3661/2020 and therefore respondent No. 4 could not be granted promotion again under OSC.
c) Promotions to the post of Junior Health Inspector (JHI) were ordered vide Order No. 274-NG of 2018 dated 09.04.2018. Respondent No. 4 was promoted as JHI under OSC category, notionally w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The petitioner challenged this order on the grounds that (i) respondent No. 4 had already availed RBA reservation earlier and could not claim OSC now,
(ii) he himself was not considered under RBA category despite vacancies being available, (iii) the seniority position entitled him to consideration, and (iv) the promotion order was violative of Rules 10 and 11 of the Reservation Rules, 2005 and Section 19 of the Reservation Act, 2004. The petitioner therefore sought quashing of Order No. 274-NG of 2018 to the extent it promotes respondent No. 4 under OSC, and prayed for promotion of the petitioner as JHI under RBA category w.e.f. the same date with all consequential benefits.
d) The matter was initially filed as SWP 1279/2018 before the High Court, which on 03.07.2018 directed that the petitioner's HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 3661/2020 case, if eligible, be considered for promotion under RBA category. Upon reorganization, the matter was transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA 3661/2020.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents preliminarily submitted that the petition does not disclose violation of any legal, fundamental, or statutory right, and therefore the Transfer Application deserves dismissal.
They averred that the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and has suppressed material facts.
b) On merits, the respondents submitted that the petitioner's claim was duly considered in compliance with the High Court's interim order dated 03.07.2018. After examination, the petitioner was found ineligible for promotion as JHI under RBA category and a reasoned speaking consideration order dated 28.04.2020 was issued rejecting his claim.
c) It was explained that promotions to the post of JHI in District Udhampur were conducted on the basis of the final seniority list of BHWs issued on 17.07.2017. For the year 2017, five HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 3661/2020 vacancies were available, and as per the reservation roster under SRO 144 of 2008, the roster points 08 to 12 corresponded to OM, OM, OSC, OM, OM. Accordingly, five BHWs including respondent No. 4 were promoted. The roster did not contain any vacancy for RBA category within these five points, and therefore the petitioner, who figured at Serial No. 12 in seniority, could not be considered as there was no RBA slot.
d) Regarding respondent No. 4, the department admitted that he belongs to both RBA and OSC categories, and during the DPC his promotion was inadvertently shown under OSC category, which unintentionally resulted in double benefit of reservation. On realizing the error, the DPC Section was instructed through the consideration order dated 28.04.2020 to rectify the mistake and withdraw the double benefit granted to respondent No. 4 in violation of law.
e) The respondents further submitted that as reservation in promotions is presently under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government vide Circular dated 21.06.2016 (GAD/MTG/RB-IV/04/2016) directed that roster HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 3661/2020 points earmarked for reserved categories be kept unfilled. Therefore, the slot under OSC was kept reserved notionally pending the Supreme Court's decision.
f) Since the petitioner's case was duly considered and rejected, and the error in the promotion of respondent No. 4 has already been ordered to be corrected, the respondents submitted that the TA has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1279/2018 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu, which stands transferred to this Tribunal upon reorganization and has been registered as TA 3661/2020. The petitioner seeks quashing of Order No. 274-NG of 2018 dated 09.04.2018 to the extent it promotes respondent No. 4, Abdul Gafoor, as Junior Health Inspector (JHI) under OSC category and further prays for his own promotion as JHI under the RBA category w.e.f. 09.04.2018 notionally from 01.07.2017 along with consequential benefits. The petitioner contends that respondent No. 4 had already availed reservation benefit under RBA HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 3661/2020 category at an earlier stage when he was promoted as Basic Health Worker (BHW) in 2007 and, therefore, could not be granted OSC reservation for his next promotion in terms of Section 19 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004. He further asserts that he himself was entitled to be considered under RBA category for promotion to JHI but the respondents ignored him despite the availability of eligible vacancies. According to him, the seniority list placed him higher than respondent No. 4 and the impugned order violates the Reservation Rules of 2005 as well as the constitutional right to equality.
7. The respondents, however, submit that the petition discloses no infringement of any legal or fundamental right and deserves dismissal. It is explained that the petitioner's case was duly considered pursuant to the interim direction of the High Court dated 03.07.2018, and a reasoned consideration order dated 28.04.2020 was issued rejecting his claim. The respondents clarify that promotions to the post of Junior Health Inspector in District Udhampur during 2017 were made strictly on the basis of the final seniority list of BHWs issued vide notification dated 17.07.2017 and as per the reservation roster prescribed under SRO 144 of 2008. As per roster positions 08 to 12 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 3661/2020 applicable to the five vacancies, the sequence was OM, OM, OSC, OM, OM. Since no point in these five vacancies pertained to RBA category, no BHW belonging to RBA category could be considered, and the petitioner, who was at serial number 12 in seniority, did not fall within the zone of consideration. The respondents further submit that although respondent No. 4 belongs to both RBA and OSC categories, his promotion under OSC category against the roster point was done inadvertently, which created the impression of double benefit of reservation. This error was acknowledged and was directed to be rectified through the speaking consideration order dated 28.04.2020. It is also pointed out that the issue of reservation in promotions is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, pursuant to Government Circular dated 21.06.2016, all slots meant for reserved categories are to remain vacant or kept reserved till the matter attains finality. Thus, the OSC slot was kept reserved notionally even while promotions were processed.
8. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, this Tribunal finds no merit in the petitioner's claims. The petitioner's sole plea hinges on the assumption that he ought to have been promoted under RBA HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 3661/2020 category; however, the roster itself does not earmark any RBA vacancy within the five promotional posts available during the period in question. Promotion cannot be granted contrary to the statutory roster, and the petitioner's placement at serial number 12 in the seniority list does not automatically entitle him to promotion unless a roster vacancy for his category exists. The department's methodology reflects adherence to the seniority-cum-roster system, and no illegality or arbitrariness is demonstrated.
9. The grievance regarding respondent No. 4's alleged double reservation benefit also does not assist the petitioner. The department has already acknowledged the oversight and has initiated correction by directing rectification of the inadvertent extension of OSC benefit. Once the department itself has cured the error and the slot is treated as reserved subject to the outcome of the pending matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there survives no actionable cause for the petitioner. Importantly, even if respondent No. 4's promotion under OSC is kept in abeyance or rectified, the petitioner still cannot be granted promotion in absence of an RBA roster point. The scheme of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 3661/2020 reservation does not permit displacement of all rules merely on account of seniority alone.
10. This Tribunal also finds that the petitioner has not established violation of any constitutional or statutory right. His case was duly considered in compliance with High Court directions and was rejected through a detailed speaking order, which neither appears arbitrary nor perverse. The petitioner's assertions regarding Rules 10 and 11 of the 2005 Reservation Rules are also unfounded, as the department has followed the prescribed roster, and the petitioner's non-selection is not a result of discrimination but due to absence of a roster vacancy for his category. Courts and Tribunals cannot rewrite the roster or direct promotion dehors rules.
11. In light of the above analysis, and noting that even the alleged error in respondent No. 4's case stands ordered for correction, the petitioner's grievance does not survive and the Transfer Application has become infructuous as well as devoid of merit.
12. Accordingly, TA 3661/2020 is dismissed. No costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV