Srinagar, April 7, KDC: The Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Dhar, has upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) landmark judgment that quashed the redrawn seniority list of senior KAS officers from the 1999, 2001, and 2004 batches.
Dismissing a series of petitions challenging the CAT verdict, the High Court observed that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that the private respondents were empanelled against anticipated rather than clear vacancies. The court emphasized that the minutes of the meeting held on May 29, 2008, clearly showed that the private respondents—Dr. G.N. Itoo and Tariq Hussain Ganai—were considered for promotion against available vacancies of 2008 by the Selection Establishment Committee.
“It was not open to the Government to alter the seniority list to the detriment of the respondents without affording them a hearing,” the Division Bench observed. The court further noted that once the Government accepted the CAT’s judgment upholding the seniority list of June 24, 2011, it could not alter the list without pursuing an appropriate legal challenge.
The Tribunal, comprising Chairman Justice L. Narasimha Reddy and Administrative Member Jamsheed Akhter, had earlier struck down the draft revised seniority list of senior KAS officers, terming the government’s steps post-April 2020—including the constitution of a review committee and issuance of a revised list dated August 5, 2020—as legally untenable. The CAT also held that Rule 15(4) and its proviso under the 2008 Rules were contrary to law.
The High Court observed that the only legal course open to the Government after the CAT’s order dated March 30, 2021, was either to file a writ petition or seek a review before the Tribunal. “Once the seniority list was upheld by the Tribunal, the issuing authority had become functus officio,” the court added.
The court also rejected the argument that private respondents were appointed against leave vacancies, reiterating that vacancies as per the Establishment Committee’s May 2008 minutes were clear and available. It also dismissed the contention that the cut-off date of January 1, 2008, used for considering vacancies, violated the 1979 Rules.
Notably, the court said the Tribunal had rightly concluded that the 1979 Rules did not mandate year-wise preparation of the select list based on a specific cut-off. Instead, Rule 6 required the Government to set up a Selection Committee whenever selection was to be made, and Rule 5(3)(a) prescribed filling up vacancies occurring in a calendar year.
Senior Advocate Abhinav Sharma, appearing for some of the petitioners, contended that since the private respondents had accepted the order dated August 13, 2021—releasing their selection grade—they could not later challenge the seniority list of April 7, 2021. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that the grievance of the private respondents was limited to their lowered position in the new list compared to the list of April 26, 2011, which had already been upheld by the Tribunal.
“If the seniority list dated April 7, 2021 is quashed to the extent of private respondents, then the seniority list of April 26, 2011, except for 49 officers placed at the bottom due to their adjustment against training and leave vacancies, would remain in force,” the court noted.
Concluding that there was “no legal infirmity” in the CAT’s order dated January 25, 2023, the High Court dismissed all writ petitions, upholding the Tribunal’s decision in totality. (KDC)