### Ad Hoc Appointee in Isolated Cadre Ineligible for Graded Promotion Benefits Under SRO 28 of 1996 I. Case Overview The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside a Tribunal order granting retrospective promotion to a respondent who secured his initial ad hoc engagement through political desire rather than a constitutional selection process. The Court held that an employee serving in an isolated post within a society lacks a "cadre" for the application of graded pay scales. II. Key Legal Issues 1. Application of SRO 28 of 1996: Does the benefit of promotion to Driver Grade-I and Chauffeur apply to an isolated post (single-post cadre)? 2. Equity and Clean Hands: Can a petitioner seeking relief based on forged/fabricated documents invoke the court's equitable jurisdiction? 3. Regularization vs. Adjustment: Does a government order transferring a post for "adjustment" constitute a substantive appointment or regularization? III. Court's Observations and Findings * Fraud and Forgery: The Court found the respondent submitted two versions of his 1994 appointment order—one original (stating "stop-gap") and one forged (omitting "stop-gap"). It reaffirmed that those who approach the court with "unclean hands" forfeit the right to equitable relief. * Isolated Cadre Limitation: SRO 28 of 1996 requires a percentage-based conversion of existing posts (30% to Grade-I, 20% to Chauffeur). The Court ruled this formula is mathematically and legally inapplicable to the AIDS Control Society, which possessed only a single, isolated post of Driver. * Nature of Appointment: The respondent’s entry was an *ad hoc* arrangement made at the "desire" of a Secretary, bypassing Article 14 and 16 requirements. Such "backdoor" entries do not ripen into substantive appointments merely through the passage of time or administrative adjustments. * Repatriation: While the Court denied promotion benefits, it ruled the respondent could not be repatriated to the Health Department because the post he occupied was permanently transferred to the Society, making him a Society employee by legal fiction. IV. Final Ruling The High Court allowed the UT's petitions and quashed the Tribunal’s directions for promotion and interest. It upheld the Society's right to investigate the forgery but maintained the respondent's status as a Society employee, preventing further "wrongful benefits" in service.

The respondent was initially engaged as a Driver in the State AIDS Control Cell in 1994 on an ad hoc/stop-gap basis.

In 2007, one post of Driver was transferred from the Directorate of Health Services to the J&K AIDS Prevention & Control Society ("Society") to adjust the respondent.

The respondent later claimed promotion to "Chauffeur" based on SRO 28 of 1996, asserting he was a substantive employee since 1994/2007.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the respondent’s petitions, directing his promotion to Chauffeur from 2004 and quashing his repatriation to the Health Department.

The UT challenged this, alleging the respondent submitted a forged 1994 appointment order in the CAT proceedings to appear as a substantive appointee.

1. Whether the respondent was ever appointed in a substantive capacity or if his services were regularized by a competent authority.

2. Whether the respondent is an employee of the Directorate of Health Services or the AIDS Control Society.

3. Whether the respondent is entitled to the benefits of pay up-gradation/promotion under SRO 28 of 1996.

The Court applied the equitable principle that "one who seeks equity must do equity," noting that extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and may be denied if a party approaches the court with "unclean hands" or forged documents.

Regarding service law, the Court applied the J&K Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1992 (as amended by SRO 28 of 1996), which stipulates that the designations of Driver Grade-I and Chauffeur are created by re-designating specific percentages (30% and 20% respectively) of the total sanctioned strength of a cadre.

Furthermore, it emphasized that substantive appointments must be made through a selection process consistent with the mandates of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Court found that the respondent’s 1994 entry was a "backdoor entry" made at the "desire" of a Secretary rather than through a constitutional selection process.

It was determined that the respondent had knowingly placed a forged version of his 1994 appointment letter before the Tribunal to suppress the "stop-gap" nature of his employment.

Regarding the promotion, the Court reasoned that SRO 28 of 1996 cannot apply to an "isolated cadre" consisting of only one post, as the 30% or 20% mathematical distribution required by the SRO is impossible to apply to a single post.

While the 2007 order adjusted the respondent against a post, it did not constitute a formal "regularization" or "substantive appointment" in the legal sense.

However, since the post itself was permanently transferred to the Society, the respondent attained the status of a Society employee and could not be repatriated to the Health Department.

The Court held that while the respondent remains an employee of the Society (preventing his repatriation), he is not entitled to further career benefits due to the lack of substantive appointment and his conduct in misled the court.

The Court upheld the direction to investigate the alleged forgery of the 1994 order and allowed the State to initiate criminal or departmental proceedings.

Relief was granted to the UT petitioners by setting aside the promotion/monetary benefits, but the repatriation order remained quashed.