Facts
The applicants are officers of the Jammu and Kashmir Animal Husbandry Gazetted Service, substantively holding the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (VAS), which is the entry-level post.
Source reference: p.7, para. 3(b)Under the J&K Animal Husbandry Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1988, VAS is the feeding cadre for promotion to Livestock Development Officer (LDO) and equivalent posts, which are to be filled 100% by promotion from VAS having at least three years of service.
Source reference: p.7-8, para. 3(c)The hierarchy continues to Deputy Director, Joint Director, and finally Director Animal Husbandry, a selection post from Joint Directors.
Source reference: p.7-8, para. 3(c)Despite finalization of the seniority list of VAS vide Government Order No. 50-ASH of 2013 dated 27.02.2013, regular promotions were not made, and officers were placed on higher posts on an in-charge/adhoc basis.
Source reference: p.8, para. 3(d)-(e)The grievance arose from a communication dated 29.11.2016 proposing promotions to LDO by applying reservation through a roster system, which the applicants contended would promote junior officers from reserved categories over their seniors.
Source reference: p.9, para. 3(f)This action was challenged on the grounds that reservation in promotion was declared unconstitutional by the Division Bench of the High Court of J&K in a judgment dated 09.10.2015.
Source reference: p.9, para. 3(g)A specific grievance was raised against respondent No. 5, who, despite being junior to many applicants in the VAS seniority list, was placed on various higher in-charge posts, ultimately functioning as Director Animal Husbandry, Kashmir.
Source reference: p.10, para. 3(i)The official respondents contended that reservation rules were still in force, the matter was sub-judice before the Supreme Court, and promotions were processed according to the roster prescribed under SRO-294 of 2005 read with SRO-144 of 2008.
Source reference: p.12, para. 4(b)-(c)They also stated that respondent No. 5's appointment as in-charge Director was a temporary administrative arrangement in the departmental interest.
Source reference: p.13, para. 4(e)-(f)Issues
Whether promotions in the Animal Husbandry Gazetted Service could be processed by applying reservation in promotion, especially given the High Court's declaration that such provisions were unconstitutional?
Source reference: p.18, para. 10Whether a junior officer (respondent No. 5) could be allowed to occupy higher posts, including Director Animal Husbandry, on an in-charge basis while ignoring the claims of senior officers?
Source reference: p.18, para. 10Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principles of service jurisprudence regarding promotions, emphasizing that seniority cannot be ignored except for legally permissible reasons, and that in-charge arrangements are temporary and cannot supersede seniors.
Source reference: p.19-20, para. 11, 13It relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court dated 09.10.2015, which declared Section 6 of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, and Rules 9, 10, and 34 of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005, relating to reservation in promotion, as unconstitutional.
Source reference: p.9, para. 3(g); p.17, para. 7The Tribunal also referred to the principles of equality embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which are violated when junior officers are promoted over seniors without proper justification.
Source reference: p.11, para. 3(j)Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the respondents' justification for applying the reservation roster was unsustainable, given that the High Court had already declared the relevant provisions for reservation in promotion unconstitutional.
Source reference: p.19, para. 12Even if the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, the proper course would have been to seek clarification or keep promotions in abeyance, not to selectively apply reservation to the prejudice of senior officers through ad-hoc arrangements.
Source reference: p.19-20, para. 12The Tribunal also determined that the action of allowing respondent No. 5, a junior officer, to occupy the post of Director Animal Husbandry on an in-charge basis, while ignoring the claims of several senior officers, was equally unsustainable and arbitrary.
Source reference: p.20, para. 13Such in-charge arrangements are meant to be temporary administrative measures and cannot be used to supersede seniors.
Source reference: p.20, para. 13The department should have assigned the charge to the senior-most eligible officer in the cadre of Joint Director.
Source reference: p.20, para. 13The prolonged ad-hoc arrangements in the department were criticized for affecting efficiency and causing stagnation among eligible senior officers, contrary to Supreme Court rulings regarding timely filling of promotional posts.
Source reference: p.20-21, para. 14Holding
The Transfer Application was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the respondents' actions in processing promotions by applying a reservation roster and allowing Respondent No.5 to function as Director Animal Husbandry in preference to senior officers could not be sustained in law.
Source reference: p.21, para. 16The respondents must review the entire promotional exercise in the Animal Husbandry Gazetted Service in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.
Source reference: p.21, para. 17(a)Promotions to LDO and higher posts must be based on the final seniority list and applicable rules, without allowing juniors to supersede seniors, except as legally permissible.
Source reference: p.22, para. 17(b)The respondents must reconsider the in-charge arrangement for the Director Animal Husbandry post and assign the charge to the senior-most eligible officer in the Joint Director cadre until a regular promotion is finalized.
Source reference: p.22, para. 17(c)The process for regular promotions to all higher posts, including LDO, Deputy Director, and Joint Director, must be completed within four months from the date of the order.
Source reference: p.22, para. 17(d)The claims of the applicants must be considered strictly according to their seniority and eligibility.
Source reference: p.22, para. 17(e)Original Court PDF
Dr. Kewal Krishan Bhardwaj & Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. [TA 5279/2020]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in