Jammu, Aug 21: In O.A./912/2025 (SRINAGAR) tilled SAMIULLAH BEIGH AND OTHERS Vs JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT after hearing01/ The petitioners 21 in number have sought for the following reliefsBy issuance of appropriate order or direction, the Government Order No. 159-JK(JSD) of 2025 dated 27.06.2025 in terms whereof sanction has been accorded to the placement of Respondent No. 3 as Superintending Engineer be quashed and set aside.
By issuance of appropriate order or direction, the Government Order No. 139-JK(JSD) of 2024 dated 24.06.2024 assigning the temporary charge of the post of Incharge Executive Engineer to the respondent no.3 be quashed and set aside. By issuance of appropriate order or direction, Government Order No. 238 JK(JSD) of 2023 dated 06.10.2023 to the extent it accords sanction to the promotion of Respondent No. 3 as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Jal Shakti Department w.e.f 01.01.2017 be declared as illegal and not countenanced by law and thereto be quashed and set aside.
By issuance of appropriate order or direction, Government Order No. 221-JK(JSD) of 2024 dated 10.10.2024 to the extent it places the Respondent No. 3 over and above the applicants in the final seniority list be quashed and set aside.
By issuance of appropriate order or direction, SRO 14 of 2016 dated 15.01.2016 be declared as inoperative, otiose and not capable of being executed and thereto be quashed and set aside. Such order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
02/ Along side the main reliefs, the petitioners have also sought for the following interim reliefPending adjudication of the OA, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to stay the operation of the Government Order No. 159-JK(JSD) of 2025 dated 27.06.2025 in terms whereof sanction has been accorded to the placement of Respondent No. 3 as Superintending Engineer.
03/ What emerge out of pleadings of the O.A. are that the petitioners were appointed against the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in terms of Government Order bearing No. 419-PW(R&B) of 2007 dated 31.12.2007.
The copy of the Govt. Order dated 31.12.2007 is appended with O.A. 04/ It is stated that in the petition that the service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the J&K Engineering (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1978 as notified vide SRO 380 dated 06.07.1978.
It is also stated in the petition that despite the rule position being clear and unambiguous, vide Government Order No. 338-PW(HYD) of 2015 dated 15.12.2015, the respondent No. 3 was placed as Incharge Assistant Executive Engineer under M.Tech. Category.
Copy of the Govt. Order dated 15.12.2015 also appended with the O.A. 05/ It is further contended in the petition that the issuance of order dated 15.12.2015 was objected by the petitioners.
In response, the applicants were informed that the order has its basis to the issuance of SRO-14 dated 15.01.2016. The information on the face of it was tainted with malice and was an illegal act in as much as SRO was issued after the Government order referred hereinabove and was to be made applicable only from the date of notification of the revised Rules as and when issued.
However, It is further stated in the petition that no such revised Rules were notified.
06/ It is further averred in the petition that the adjustment of respondent No. 3 was in complete disregard of the Recruitment Rules and was stand alone order without having considered any other official with similar qualification and who may have been senior to that of respondent No. 3, on the basis of possessing such qualification, vide Government Order No. 97-PW(HYD) of 2016 dated 28.03.2016.
07/ Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that vide Govt. Order bearing No. 178-JK(JSD) of 2021 dated 01.09.2021, sanction was accorded to the appointment of an Inquiry Officer to complete the inquiry initiated vide earlier order dated 28.03.2016 regarding the illegality and circumstance under which SRO-14 dated 15.01.2016 had been issued.
Besides that, Under Secretary to the Government, Jal Shakti Department was appointed the Presenting Officer in the case.
The Inquiry Officer was to fix the responsibility of the Officers/Officials who had mooted the proposal regarding placement of Assistant Executive Engineer/ I/C Assistant Executive Engineers as Executive Engineer on 24.11.2017, including M.Tech Degree Holders, without bringing forth the material fact of the case before the authorities and misrepresenting them, which would be gross violation of the Business Rules.
08/ Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that yet again a Govt. Order bearing No. 16-JK(JSD) of 2022 dated 25.01.2022 was issued, whereby, as per approval of the Competent Authority, the benefits conferred under SRO-14 of 2016 dated 15.01.2016 in respect of the following officers as I/C Executive Engineers and I/C Assistant Executive Engineers respectively by virtue of Govt.
Order Nos. as shown in the order, shall be deemed to have been withdrawn ab-initio.
09/ Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, while buttressing his arguments further, submits that the respondent No. 3 herein challenged the order dated 25.01.2022 before this Hon'ble Tribunal by virtue of an O.A. bearing No. 54/2022 wherein he has sought for the following reliefs01. By an appropriate order or direction, the impugned order no. 16-JK(JSD) of 2022 dated 25.01.2022 be quashed. 02. By an appropriate order or direction, the Respondents be directed to treat the Applicant as Assistant Executive Engineer.
The Respondent be further directed to convene DPC/PSC and be further directed to place the case of the Applicant forregularization/ confirmation as Assistant Executive Engineerbefore the appropriate committee.
03. By an appropriate order or direction, the Respondents be directed to consider the Applicant for further promotion as Executive Engineer, based on his merit, seniority and suitability.
04. Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunaldeems fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondents.
10/ Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that initially, the Hon'ble Tribunal declined to grant any interim relief in favour of the petitioner, which compelled the respondent no.3 to file his Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir which came to be disposed of vide order dated 14.03.2022, whereby it was held that-
"In the light of the above observations, we dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Tribunal to positively consider and decide the claim of the Petitioner for grant of interim relief on the next date of hearing fixed before it.
We further direct that till the next date of hearing before the Tribunal only viz. 13th of April, 2022, the operation of the Government Order dated 25th of January, 2022 shall not be given effect qua the petitioner and the present position of the petitioner maintained, whereafter the same shall be governed by the orders to be passed by the Tribunal with regard to the interim relief sought by the Petitioner before it."
11/ Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that ultimately at the consensus of the learned counsel for the parties, the O.A./54/2022 was disposed of with a direction that the respondents will consider the case of the petitioner for his next higher promotion based on his merit, seniority and suitability, and in accordance with his entitlement. The respondents were also directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is served upon the respondents.
The consideration be accorded on its merits.
12/ The petitioners herein have assailed two orders, Government Order No. 139-JK(JSD) of 2024 dated 24.06.2024, by virtue of which the respondent No. 3 was assigned temporary charge of the post of I/C Executive Engineer, as well as, the issuance of Government Order No. 159-JK(JSD) of 2025 dated 27.06.2025, whereby sanction has been granted to the placement of respondent No. 3, Executive Engineer, as I/C Superintending Engineer. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders on the grounds as has been urged in the O.A.
13/ The star ground as agitated by the petitioners in the O.A. is that the order dated 27.06.2025 is in violation of Regulation 85 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956. It is also assailed that SRO 14 dated 15.01.2016 is an SRO issued dehors the mandate of the Business Rules governing issuance of such Notifications/Orders, particularly when the benefit which was given to the petitioner, was withdrawn in terms of the Govt. Order dated 25.01.2022.
Moreover, learned senior counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that by any stretch of imagination, the respondent No.3, being junior to the petitioners herein, could not have been given the permissions even if by way of a stop-gap or interim arrangement. He further submits that there is no doubt that the competent authority can consider, in an exigency, an employee, but states that the same has to be mandatory and in accordance with rules. To this effect, he has referred to Rule 85 of the CSR.
14/ On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the Government instructions appended to Rule 85 of the CSR. He submits that even while making such arrangements, the competent authority is under an obligation to ensure that only such officers are appointed in the required posts, subject to proper scrutiny by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and other necessary procedures.
15/ Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the order impugned is violative of the guarantees as enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioners have been arbitrarily discriminated.
In short, at this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioners stated that by no stretch of imagination, respondent No. 3 was entitled to such a concession, as he does not conform to the basic requirements of eligibility. The petitioners contend that respondent No.3 does not have 15 years of experience as a gazetted officer, which would entitle the petitioners, and not respondent No. 3, to at least the benefit as has been showered upon him.
16 / Learned senior counsel for the respondents further submits that the employer is required to see that the person so attached against higher positions was otherwise eligible therefor, and submits that in the instant case respondent No. 3 does not possess the requisite eligibility for his promotion, particularly when the benefit of M.Tech, as was granted in favour of the petitioner, was withdrawn by the Government in terms of the order of 2022.
To this effect, he has referred to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir titled Anil Razdan & Anr. vs. Jammu & Kashmir High Court, decided on 17th November 2012, (4) JKJ 154.
17/ Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records as well as the contents of the O.A. 18/ Issue notice. Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie as well as Mr. Shah Aamir accept notices and are granted four weeks’ time to file the reply. As regards respondent No. 3, we invoke the powers conferred under Section 11(3)(2) of the CAT Act, 1985, for issuance of notice of the O.A. upon respondent No. 3 through the Vice Chairman, LCMA, and at the same time direct service of notice on Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, Ld. DAG, to inform respondent No. 3.
The Registry shall issue a proper notice in accordance with law.
19/ Learned assisting counsel to learned senior counsel for the petitioners to submit a set of the O.A. with all annexures for effective service on respondent No. 3, who is also at liberty to serve respondent No. 3 through Dasti notice as well.
20/ List this matter on 16.09.2025.
21/ In the meanwhile, at this stage, in order to preserve the subject matter of the O.A., the order impugned bearing Government Order No. 159-JK(JSD) of 2025 dated 27.06.2025 shall remain subject to the final outcome of the main O.A.
22/ Alteration/modification on motion on or before the next date of hearing.
|