AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]
Before proceeding further, it is revealed from the record that the applicants have filed M.A. No. 1150/2026 seeking permission to file a joint application. For the reasons stated therein, the said M.A. is allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the post of Range Officer Grade-I in the J&K Forest Department (Territorial) was advertised by the Public Service Commission vide Notification No. PSC/Exam/2018/19 dated 15.03.2018. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the Public Service Commission conducted the written examination along with the requisite physical test, in which the applicants participated and qualified. The applicants were accordingly selected for appointment to the post of Range Officer Grade-I vide Selection and were placed at various serial numbers in the selection list on the basis of the merit secured by them in the selection process. Copies of the advertisement notice and the selection list have been placed on record as Annexures A-2 and A-3, respectively.
Learned counsel further submits that the inter se seniority of the selected candidates is required to be determined in terms of Rule 24 of the J&K Classification, Control and Appeal Rules and, since the selection in the present case was conducted by the Public Service Commission, the merit secured by the candidates in the selection process is required to be given due consideration for determining their inter se seniority, subject to the applicable statutory rules. However, the selection of the applicants could not culminate in their appointment on account of O.A. No. 5540/2020 filed by certain candidates before this Tribunal. The said O.A. came to be allowed and the selection list, to the extent it related to the applicants, was set aside on the prescribed minimum height of 5 feet 6 inches. The Tribunal directed the concerned respondents to conduct the exercise of height measurement, along with the test mentioned in the advertisement notice, and thereafter prepare a final select list of candidates fulfilling all the prescribed eligibility criteria. A copy of the judgment passed in O.A. No. 5540/2020 has been placed on record as Annexure A-4.
It is submitted that the aforesaid judgment of this Tribunal was challenged by the applicants before the Hon’ble High Court by way of WP(C) No. 1757/2021. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 06.09.2023 and the judgment passed by this Tribunal was quashed and set aside. The said judgment of the Hon’ble High Court was thereafter challenged by the unsuccessful candidates before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP No. 203669/2023, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.11.2023. Copies of the judgment of the Hon’ble Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06.11.2023 have been placed on record as Annexures A-5 and A-6, respectively.
Learned counsel further submits that, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court and dismissal of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents issued appointment orders in favour of the applicants vide Government Order No. 208-JK(FST) of 2024 dated 04.10.2024, whereby the applicants came to be appointed as Range Officer Grade-I in the Forest Ecology and Environment Department. A copy of the said appointment order has been placed on record as Annexure A-7.
It is submitted that the applicants did not fail to join the post at the relevant point of time, but were prevented from doing so solely on account of the litigation initiated by certain candidates and the orders passed during the pendency thereof. The delay in their appointment was, therefore, not attributable to any deliberate or intentional applicants were kept out of service on account of circumstances beyond their control and that, once the challenge to their selection ultimately failed before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they could not be made to suffer the adverse consequences of the intervening litigation. It is submitted that the principle that an act of the Court shall prejudice none would squarely apply to the facts of the present case.
Learned counsel submits that the applicants have accordingly approached the respondents seeking that they be granted appointment from the date on which their counterparts, who were selected along with them in the same selection process, were appointed, i.e. with effect from 25.11.2019, pursuant to Government Order No. 519-JK(FST) of 2019 dated 25.11.2019. A copy of the said Government Order has been placed on record as Annexure A-8.
It is further submitted that the applicants cannot be their selection was subjected to judicial scrutiny. According to the applicants, their merit cannot be made a casualty of litigation which was not attributable to them. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Dhar v. J&K Public Service Commission, decided on 10.10.2000, and submits that where a duly selected candidate is wrongly denied appointment and subsequently succeeds in litigation, the candidate is entitled to appropriate consequential benefits, including appointment from the date on which he ought to have been appointed, in accordance with law.
Learned counsel submits that, in the present case, the applicants are not claiming anything beyond the merit position secured by them in the selection process. It is submitted that the applicants are not pressing for monetary benefits for the intervening period, but seek notional appointment and notional seniority from 25.11.2019, along with the consequential service benefits flowing position in the select list was determined on the basis of merit and the subsequent delay in issuing their appointment orders, occasioned by the litigation, cannot be permitted to dilute or disturb the merit position secured by them.
Learned counsel further submits that treating the applicants as juniors merely because their appointment orders were issued subsequently would result in an anomalous situation whereby candidates securing lower merit could gain an advantage over the applicants solely on account of the intervening litigation. It is contended that the applicants ought not to suffer for circumstances beyond their control, particularly when the challenge to their selection ultimately stood rejected and their selection was restored by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, which attained finality upon dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
It is also submitted that the applicants have been Central Administrative Tribunalcontinuously pursuing their claim before the respondents and have submitted representations seeking grant of notional appointment and seniority from 25.11.2019, along with consequential service benefits. However, despite the culmination of the litigation and the appointment of the applicants in the year 2024, their claim for notional appointment and seniority has not been finally considered or decided by the respondents.
Learned counsel submits that denial of notional seniority would have continuing civil consequences for the applicants, particularly in matters relating to their future promotion, pay fixation and pensionary benefits. It is further submitted that the applicants are not seeking actual monetary arrears for the period during which they remained out of service and that the limited claim is for restoration of their service position and parity with the other candidates selected pursuant to the same selection process and appointed with effect from 25.11.2019.
Learned counsel also submits that the entire selection Central Administrative Tribunalprocess has attained finality upon dismissal of the challenge by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the subsequent appointment orders issued in the year 2024 cannot be treated as creating a fresh right of appointment detached from the original selection made in the year 2019. According to the applicants, their claim for notional appointment and seniority is required to be examined in the light of their merit position in the original select list, the applicable statutory rules and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Dhar v. J&K Public Service Commission.
However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the interests of justice would be adequately served if the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and consider the grievances and claims of the applicants regarding grant of notional appointment and seniority with effect from 25.11.2019, along with the consequential Central Administrative Tribunalservice benefits claimed by them, together with the documents annexed thereto, particularly in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Dhar v. J&K Public Service Commission, decided on 10.10.2000, strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated period.
Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, learned DAG for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. Shah Aamir, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, appearing on advance notice, submit that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.
Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending, particularly in view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicants.
Accordingly, in view of the limited prayer made on behalf Central Administrative Tribunalof the applicants, this Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the rival claims of the parties, deems it appropriate to dispose of the present Original Application with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and consider the grievances and claims raised by the applicants with regard to their notional appointment and seniority from 25.11.2019 and the consequential service benefits claimed by them, along with the documents annexed thereto and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Dhar v. J&K Public Service Commission, decided on 10.10.2000, to the extent applicable to the facts and circumstances of the applicants’ case, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and law governing the field and provided there is no legal impediment in doing so.
The competent authority shall thereafter pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Central Administrative Tribunalorder.
It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the applicants, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority while passing the aforesaid order.
With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.