Jammu, July 31: In Transfer Application No. 7161/2021 titled 1. Rattan Singh 2. Shoni Ram VERSUS THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Commissioner/Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar, Joginder Kumar, Draftsman O/o Town Planner, Jammu, Braham Dutt, Draftsman O/o Town Planner, Jammu & ors after hearing Parag Sharma Advocate on behalf of applicants a, DB of CAT Jammu ordered as under:-
The SWP/WP(C) No. 1659/2013 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/7161/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer: a) CERTIORARI: Calling the records of Govt. Order No. 30 CTPJ of 2013 dated 18-05-2013 by virtue of which the private respondent No.4 and 5 have been promoted to the posts of Head Draftsman and for quashing the Govt. Order No.30 CTPJ of 2013 dated 18-05-2013 which is contrary to law and to the rights of the petitioners herein.
b) MANDAMUS: Commanding the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Head Draftsman in view of their eligibility, qualification and place them ahead of the date when the private respondents were promoted as Head Draftsman in Town Planning Organization and to grant the petitioners herein all consequential benefits; c) Any other appropriate writ, direction or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents, in the interest of justice.
The facts of the case as averred by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows:
a) The petitioners are permanent residents of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and are employed as Draftsmen in the Town Planning Organization of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir. They possess two-year Diplomas in Draftsman (Civil) obtained from recognized institutions during service, with due approval/sanction from the competent authority.
Their appointments and service conditions are governed by the J&K Town Planning (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1990, which prescribe a minimum of five years’ experience along with a two-year diploma for eligibility to the post of Head Draftsman.
b) In a tentative seniority list dated 27.03.2013 (Annexure ‘C’), the petitioners were placed senior to private respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
Despite their seniority and eligibility, the petitioners were overlooked and the junior private respondents were promoted to the post of Head Draftsman via Govt. Order No. 30 CTPJ of 2013 dated 18.05.2013 (Annexure ‘Q’), which is impugned in the present petition.
The petitioners claim that their qualifications—National Trade Certificate in Draftsmanship (Civil) obtained through NCVT while in service are at par with the qualifications of the private respondents, who obtained similar diplomas as regular candidates prior to joining service. Multiple official communications, including those dated 18.10.2001 (Annexure ‘G’), 01.02.2012 (Annexure ‘J’), 24.10.2011 (Annexure ‘K’), 07.12.1995 (Annexure ‘M’), and 08.01.1996 (Annexure ‘N’), support the equivalency of the certificates obtained by private and in-service candidates for the purpose of promotion.
They further assert that the promotions were made with mala fide intentions and without recording any valid reason for excluding the seniors. The impugned order is thus challenged as arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal & they seek issuance of writ of Certiorari to call the records of Govt. Order No. 30 CTPJ of 2013 dated 18.05.2013 and quash the said order.
The answering respondent submits that the petitioners’ claim is legally unsustainable and deserves outright dismissal. It is contended at the outset that none of the constitutional, legal, or statutory rights of the petitioners have been infringed by the answering respondent.
Therefore, there exists no cause of action to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this threshold ground.
The answering respondent is working as Head Draftsman in the Town Planning Organisation of the J&K Government. As per the applicable recruitment rules laid down under SRO 252 of 1990, the qualification for promotion to the post of Head Draftsman requires either a 3-year diploma in Architecture with four years of experience, or a 2-year diploma in Draftsmanship from a recognised institute with at least five years of experience in the relevant category.
The answering respondent possessed the requisite technical qualification and was found eligible by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion, which was accordingly granted by order dated 18.05.2013.
In contrast, the petitioners did not possess the essential two- year diploma qualification prescribed in the recruitment rules. This was duly noted by the DPC in its meeting held on 17.05.2013, wherein the petitioners were considered but found ineligible due to lack of required technical qualifications.
It is specifically pointed out that the case of the petitioners had earlier been considered in the DPC held on 17.09.2011 as well and their claim was rejected for identical reasons. The petitioners had accepted the said rejection without protest for over two years, and therefore, their current challenge is barred by delay, acquiescence, and estoppel.
The rules clearly require a 2-year diploma with five years of experience in the category. The rules are to be interpreted in strict terms and cannot be stretched by implication to accord undue benefit to the petitioners.
The name of respondent no. 4 (Shri Rattan Singh) was not specifically mentioned, but the entire batch of 05 Draftsmen was considered, and thus respondent no. 4 stood included.
It is further submitted that while the petitioner Shri Braham Dutt has relied on a DPC held in April 2002, where two officials with the same qualification as respondent no. 4 were promoted, the DPC meeting held on 17.09.2011 had its own reasons for rejection based on the applicable recruitment rules and qualifications. The answering respondent denies having granted any undue benefit to respondent no. 4 and clarifies that he possesses the requisite qualification — National Trade Certificate in Draftsman Civil from the National Council for Vocational Training, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India — which is the same qualification held by others who were promoted to the post of Planning Assistant.
It is submitted that although respondent no. 4 was not promoted in the DPC held on 17.05.2013, he was placed as Incharge Head Draftsman vide order dated 07.07.2016 purely in the interest of government work and subject to confirmation by the DPC, as well as outcome of writ petitions pending before courts.
The retrospective effect was granted to respondent no. 4 based on his seniority and eligibility as per recruitment rules. He was third in the seniority list and eligible for the third available post of Head Draftsman but was earlier ignored.
A complaint was filed by the petitioner Shri Braham Dutt regarding the said promotion, based on which an enquiry was ordered vide G.O. No. 249-HUD of 2016 dated 30.12.2016.
The enquiry officer submitted a report concluding that Shri Rattan Singh possesses the requisite qualification and can be considered for promotion. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be re-examined by the department and action taken in view of the enquiry findings.
The answering respondent denies the allegations made in para 6 of the writ petition and clarifies that the order dated 07.07.2016 was not issued in a hasty or mala fide manner. Though the order was typed on 27.06.2016, it was signed later upon return of the respondent from official duties at Srinagar. The order was within the competency of the answering respondent and made in accordance with the recruitment rules.
It is reiterated that the promotion in favour of respondent no. 4 was made fairly, based on his seniority, eligibility, and in the interest of government work. The retrospective effect granted to him is justified, as he was otherwise eligible and senior to the petitioner and others. p) All contentions raised in paras 7 to 10 of the writ petition are denied.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1659/2013, which stood transferred to this Tribunal upon its establishment. The petitioners initially included three individuals, namely Shri Rattan Lal (petitioner no. 1), Shri Rattan Singh (petitioner no. 2), and Shri Shoni Ram (petitioner no. 3), all serving as Draftsmen (Civil) in the Town Planning Wing of the Housing and Urban Development Department, UT of Jammu & Kashmir.
During the pendency of this petition, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that petitioner no. 1 (Shri Rattan Lal) expired. Vide order dated 05.06.2025, his name was accordingly deleted from the array of petitioners.
The matter is now pursued by petitioner no. 2 Shri Rattan Singh and petitioner no. 3 Shri Shoni Ram. 9. The dispute relates to denial of promotion to the post of Head Draftsman pursuant to the DPC held on 17.05.2013.
The petitioners assert that they were seniors in service, duly qualified with the National Trade Certificate (NTC) in Draftsman (Civil) issued by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT), Government of India, and were fully eligible in terms of the Town Planning (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules. However, respondents no. 3 and 4, juniors to the petitioners, were promoted to the post of Head Draftsman ignoring their superior claim.
The justification provided by the DPC for exclusion of the petitioners was that they had acquired the NTC qualification as private candidates through Government ITIs, whereas the private respondents had completed it as regular candidates from private institutes.
This, according to the DPC, created a distinction in eligibility.
However, the respondents themselves in their pleadings and objections (filed in connected SWP No. 627/2017) admitted that both private and regular candidates appear in the same examination, undergo identical syllabus, and receive certificates from the same authority i.e., NCVT. The petitioners also placed reliance on precedent cases where candidates with identical private NCVT certificates were promoted to superior posts like Planning Assistant and Head Draftsman
The petitioner has also relied upon past precedent where candidates with identical qualifications obtained as private candidates, namely Shri Bhushan Kumar and Shri Raj Gopal, were promoted to the post of Planning Assistant and Head Draftsman, respectively. These facts are not rebutted by the respondents.
The core question for determination before this Tribunal is whether the DPC was justified in denying promotion to the petitioner on the ground of his qualification being obtained privately despite it being recognized and duly certified by NCVT.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners possess the National Trade Certificate (NTC) in Draftsman (Civil), which is a recognized technical qualification issued by NCVT under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India.
The distinction drawn by the DPC between private and regular mode of acquiring the NCVT diploma is wholly artificial and unsupported by law. It is settled that once a certificate is issued by a competent authority recognized under law, it cannot be invalidated merely due to the mode of study.
In is a trite that denial of promotion despite fulfilling statutory qualifications is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. Recruitment rules must be strictly followed, and DPCs cannot apply extraneous conditions.
Further, in Union of India v. Hargopal, (1987) 3 SCC 308, the Hon’ble Court held that once a person possesses the prescribed qualification from a recognized authority, the government cannot refuse eligibility based on assumptions not grounded in law.
The respondents’ own reply clearly states that certificates issued to private and regular candidates are equal in status, and issued by the same authority upon completion of the same syllabus. Hence, denying promotion solely because the petitioner appeared privately is contrary to the recruitment rules, discriminatory, and violative of the principles of natural justice. 1
Moreover, the minutes of the DPC show that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to explain or rebut the basis of their disqualification. This again vitiates the decision of the DPC on the touchstone of audi alteram partem.
The DPC has clearly failed to appreciate this settled position of law. The act of denying promotion to a senior eligible candidate based on an artificial and unjustifiable classification offends Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Furthermore, there is no record to indicate that the DPC offered the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the deficiency allegedly found in his qualification.
The petitioner has rightly argued that the DPC's decision was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also notes that as per the clarification issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, J&K, the certificates issued by NCVT to both regular and private candidates are equally valid and there is no requirement of any further relaxation.
In view of the above facts and settled legal position, this Tribunal finds that the denial of promotion to petitioners no. 2 and 3 was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the recruitment rules and constitutional principles of equality.
The promotion order dated 17.05.2013, to the extent it excludes the petitioners, is accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to promote the petitioners to the post of Head Draftsman with effect from 17.05.2013 in accordance with law.
The petitioners shall be entitled to notional promotion, with all consequential service benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, though arrears of salary shall be restricted to a period of three years preceding the date of this judgment, in accordance with settled law.
The entire exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
|