Showkat Ahmad Baba vs Union Territory Of J&K & Ors.

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)

Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks the following reliefs:

What emerges from the pleadings made is that the applicant appeared in the Secretariat Assistant Training Course, Departmental Examination, pursuant to Notification No. 15-S(PSC) of 2025 dated 25.04.2025, under Roll No. 2709. As stated, the applicant secured 239 marks, equivalent to 39.83% in aggregate, and was declared to have passed in all the subjects. A copy of the result has been placed on record as Annexure-A1.

It is further averred that the respondents had earlier conducted the Secretariat Assistant Training Course, Departmental Examination in the year 2021, the result whereof was declared vide Notification No. PS/EXAM/2022/40 dated 23.12.2022. It is stated that Manzoor Ahmad Dar and Bashir Ahmad Wani secured 37.75% respectively, and Ram Chand and Raja Ram, had secured 39.75% and 39.5% marks, and all were declared successful in the said examination.

It is stated that the respondents had published the Secretariat Assistants Training Institute Book for the year 2006-2007, wherein the rules for admission and syllabus of the examination were prescribed in terms of Government Order No. 3-ARI of 1993 dated 05.01.1993. As stated, under point 10 (i) thereof, the minimum pass/exemption marks were prescribed as 35% in each paper and 40% in aggregate. The applicant submits that the similarly situated candidates referred to above, having secured more than 35% marks, were considered for promotion to the post of Head Assistant, whereas the applicant, who secured 39.83% in aggregate, has been denied similar consideration.

It is contended that the respondents subsequently adopted the rules and syllabus governing Senior Assistants and Junior Assistants for undergoing the J&K Secretariat Assistant Course in the year 2021, wherein Para 11 prescribed the pass percentage as 35% in each paper. Relying upon the aforesaid provisions, the applicant submits that he has fulfilled the requisite qualification for consideration for promotion to the post of Head Assistant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant's aggregate score of 39.83% ought to be rounded off to 40%. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as State of Punjab v. Asha Mehta, (1997) 11 SCC 410, and State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari, (2005) 2 SCC 10, wherein the principle as regards rounding off of marks has been considered. The applicant, therefore, claims that upon rounding off his aggregate marks, he satisfies the prescribed requirement of 40% in aggregate.

It is further stated that the applicant has crossed the age of 54 years and has also placed reliance upon SRO No. 272 dated 19.09.2008, which, as stated, provides a concession in the matter of promotion from Senior Assistant to Head Assistant, who have not qualified the Secretariat Assistant Examination but have crossed the age of 50 years as on 1^st January of the year in which such promotion are considered. The applicant claims that, having crossed the age of 54 years, he is entitled to consideration under the said provision.

The short grievance as projected by the applicant in the instant O.A. is that, despite having qualified the Secretariat Assistant Training Course, having secured 39.83% marks in aggregate and having crossed the age of 54 years, his case for promotion to the post of Head Assistant has not been considered by the respondents. It is contended that similarly situated employees, who had secured lower aggregate marks in the Secretariat Assistant Training Course, were granted the benefit of promotion, whereas the applicant has been denied similar treatment.

It is stated that the applicant submitted representations before the respondent department seeking consideration of his case for promotion on the same analogy as the similarly situated employees have been promoted and also sought the benefit of SRO 272 dated 19.09.2008. However, as stated, the representations have not been considered by the respondents.

Being aggrieved by the non-consideration of his claim despite his eligibility, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Head Assistant in accordance with the applicable rules and on the same analogy of the similarly situated employees, who have been promoted earlier.

Heard.

At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the O.A. is taken up for its disposal.

The O.A. is disposed of by providing that the respondents shall treat this O.A. as a representation, who shall consider and decide the case of the applicant in accordance with law, keeping in view the merits of the case and the eligibility and entitlements of the applicant. The applicant shall be extended the benefit of promotion, if he is similarly situated to those employees, who have been promoted earlier. The respondents shall also take note of the law cited above, if the applicant is squarely covered by them and if there is no legal impediment. The respondents, after deciding the case of the applicant, shall pass a speaking order within a period of 08 (eight) weeks from the date a certified copy of this Order is served upon the respondents. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the case.

Accordingly, O.A. No. 1004/2026 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.