Vijay Kumar Sharma vs State of J&K and others

Designation,"Date of

Birth","Date of initial

appointment as

Teacher","Date of promotion

to the Master Grade","Year of passing of

Post-Graduation",Promotion as Lecturer,Category

Lecturer,11.07.1963,10.10.1984,24.11.2003,1987,"Vide Govt. Order No. 312 Edu of 2006

dated 23.05.2006, notionally w.e.f.

17.09.1992",General

Rules, 1956 even this rules does not specify or justify preparation of separate seniority list. It is held by the Hon''ble Court that since Rule 24",,,,,,

Jammu & Kashmir CCA 1956 relates to common seniority of the cadre of service, seniority was to be maintained irrespective of sanctioned",,,,,,

strength of vacancies and while considering question of promotion same has to be made from common seniority list subject to possession of other,,,,,,

qualification as prescribed under Rule.,,,,,,

In this petition, it has been stated that Government vide SRO No. 154 dated 11.05.1999 amended by the Jammu and Kashmir Government",,,,,,

Education Gazetted Recruitment rules and in pursuance of the said SRO the seniority list of PG, Master / Teacher (Male/ Female) has to be",,,,,,

combined in accordance with Rule 24 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services CCA Rule 1956, and the same is done by the respondent by issuing",,,,,,

the common seniority list of Master/ Teachers, which is already enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure A & B respectively and from the",,,,,,

perusal of the said seniority list it clearly indicates that the seniority of the petitioner is over the private respondents, as such benefit which was given",,,,,,

to private respondent could not be denied to the petitioner.,,,,,,

It is further submitted that in the earlier writ petition bearing SWP No. 88/2004 filed by the petitioner, he challenged the Government Order No.",,,,,,

1491 Edu of 2002 dated 31.12.2002, whereby 120 I/C Lecturer of Mathematics disciplines were regularized as Lecturer notionally from the date",,,,,,

of their placement and regular basis with effect from 01.01.2003 by ignoring the seniority position. The aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed,,,,,,

of by the Hon''ble Court, whereby the Hon''ble Court was pleased to quash the aforesaid Govt. order No. 1491-Edu of 2002 dated 31.12.2002",,,,,,

and directed the respondent State to fill the vacancies in the disciplines of Mathematics on the basis of seniority and in accordance with the Jammu,,,,,,

and Kashmir Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1992.",,,,,,

Despite the aforesaid directions passed by the Hon''ble Court, the respondents have passed the order impugned dated 23.05.2007, whereby",,,,,,

the persons junior to the petitioners i.e. private respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have been illegally promoted and given notional benefits with effect from,,,,,,

17.09.1992, which is against the letter and spirit of the directions of the Hon''ble Court and also against the provisions of J&K Education",,,,,,

(Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1992 and also against Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956.",,,,,,

The petitioner approached the official respondents many times to redress his grievance but they did not pay any heed to his request, which forced",,,,,,

the petitioner to file the instant writ petition.,,,,,,

Objections have been filed on behalf of the official respondent Nos. 1 & 2, wherein it is stated that prior to SRO 154 dated 11.05.1999,",,,,,,

separate seniority used to be maintained for male and female teachers in the Department on the basis of which promotions were being effected on,,,,,,

the post of Lecturers and the services of Incharge Lecturers were regularized on the basis of the seniority lists upto 10.05.1999. Since, in the said",,,,,,

seniority list, the female candidates namely respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were promoted against the vacancies available for female in-service candidates",,,,,,

and as such, were made I/c Lecturers in the discipline of Mathematic and as such, became senior to the petitioner. It is further stated that with the",,,,,,

maintaining of separate seniority of females and males prior to issuance of SRO-154 dated 11.05.1999, the private respondents were promoted",,,,,,

prior to the petitioner as Lecturers and accordingly there is no infringement of fundamental of legal or statutory rights of the petitioner.,,,,,,

Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of private respondent No. 3, wherein it is stated that the private respondent No. 3 had been",,,,,,

promoted on the basis of her seniority maintained by official respondents of female candidates. The separate seniority list of male and female,,,,,,

candidates was in vogue upto 11.05.1999. It is stated that when juniors to the her were promoted and regularized in the year 1992, the she and",,,,,,

some others filed a writ petition before this Hon''ble Court bearing SWP No. 524/2003. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of and after,,,,,,

passing of the judgment by this Hon''ble Court in Amrit Sagar''s case, she was promoted/regularized as Lecturer in Mathematics notionally by",,,,,,

demoting one Kousar Jabeen and ors., who were illegally promoted over the head of respondent No. 3 and other seniors, as such, the promotion",,,,,,

of the respondent No. 3 has nothing to do with the petitioner or his seniority.,,,,,,

It is further stated that the respondent No. 3 was figuring at Sr. No. 3 in the tentative seniority list of Post Graduate Teachers in female,,,,,,

category issued by the Education Department vide Order No. Edu/901/1994 dated 24.02.1994, and as she was deprived of her right to",,,,,,

promotion, she was given promotion notionally with effect from 17.09.1992 i.e. the date when her juniors were promoted. It is submitted that",,,,,,

SRO 154 of 1999 has the effect of abolishing the maintenance of separate seniority of male and female candidates but respondent No. 3 has been,,,,,,

promoted much earlier to issuance of this SRO. It is further stated that respondent No. 3 had been promoted after demotion of her juniors, who",,,,,,

were illegally promoted and regularized, as such, the petitioner cannot claim that benefit in the category in which the said respondent had been",,,,,,

promoted, as up till 1999 two separate seniority lists were being maintained for male and female candidate.",,,,,,

During the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on a decision of this Court in case titled Vijay Kumar",,,,,,

Abrol Vs. State and others reported in 2010 (1) JKJ 123 (HC), has stated that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid",,,,,,

judgment as the controversy involved in the present case is similar to that of Vijay Kumar Abrol''s case (supra) and submitted that the petitioner,,,,,,

would be satisfied, if the writ petition is disposed of in the light of observations made in Vijay Kumar Abrol''s case (supra), but within stipulated",,,,,,

period, to which, learned Addl. Advocate General has raised no objection.",,,,,,

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to official respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in",,,,,,

terms of judgment passed in Vijay Kumar Abrol Vs. State and others reported in 2010 (1) JKJ 123 (HC), if the case of petitioner is squarely",,,,,,

covered by said judgment. The whole exercise shall be done by passing a speaking order as expeditious as possible preferably within a period of,,,,,,

one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with copy of the judgment passed in Vijay Kumar Abrol''s case (supra).,,,,,,