.jpeg)
Jammu, Oct 17: In Original Application Nos. 1253/2024, 250/2025 & CP No. 145/2024 Reserved on :- 11.09.2025 Pronounced on: - 17.10.2025 tilled Ajay Parshad Sharma v/s VERSUS 1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Through Director Tourism Department & ors after hearing Advocate Mr. F.A. Natnoo for applicants & Advocate: - Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG for respondents a bench of HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J) HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A) ordered as under:-
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: - OA 1253/2024 a) “Allow this Original Application of the applicant. b) Quash the impugned decision taken under the chairmanship of respondent on 25-07-2024 and issued vide No. DTJ/MOM/8411-16 on 11-11-2024 which has the effect of nullifying all previous decisions taken in various meetings conducted since August, 2023 in the matter of consideration for promotion of the applicant as Assistant Estates Officer which is otherwise dehorse the norms and procedure as well as mandate of judgment dated 03-05-2024 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 483/2024 titled Ajay Parshad Sharma Vs UT of J&K and otherwise meant to somehow delay the process of consideration being accorded to the applicant as being the only eligible candidate to be promoted against the post of AEO. c) Direct the respondent to bring the process of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Estate Officer initiated in the month of August 2023 to its logical conclusion and accordingly allow due consideration to the case of the applicant for his promotion against the said post in view of his eligibility coupled with merit-cum-seniority as envisaged under rules and as also duly considered and deliberated by the DPC as well as Sub- committee so constituted by the respondent immediately with effect from the date of conduct of Ist D.P.C i.e 22-08-2023. d) Call for the record in respect of minutes of meeting held on 11- 01-2024 from the respondents including all office noting/recordings. e) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondent.”
OA250/2025 a) Allow this Original Application of the applicant. b) Quash the impugned decision/communication no. TSM- Estb/76/2024(CC No. 7599210) dated 06.03.2025 addressed by the respondent no.1 to respondent no. 2 whereby in reference to letter no. DTJ/MoM/8617 dated 20.11.2024 the respondent no. 1 while conveying the procedure and clarifying the rule position about merit-cum-seniority and “service period” for the post of Assistant Estate Officer (AEO) in favour of the applicant, has wrongly interpreted the J & K Tourism (Subordinate) Recruitment Rules, 1990, which otherwise amounts to amendment of the rules, which is beyond the scope of powers of respondent no. 1. c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondent.”
CP No. 145/2024 a) “Allow this Contempt Petition for the petitioner. b) Initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent/contemnor for showing willful defiance to order/judgment dated 03.05.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No. 483/2024 titled Ajay Parshad Sharma Vs. U.T of J & K & Ors. c) Direct the respondent/contemnor to show due compliance to the directions contained in order/judgment dated 03.05.2024, in true letter and spirit.” 2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: - a) The applicant, Ajay Parshad Sharma, presently serving in the Jammu and Kashmir Tourism Department, has approached this Hon’ble Tribunal through the present set of proceedings comprising O.A. No. 1253/2024, O.A. No. 250/2025, and Contempt Petition No. 145/2024, all arising out of a continuous chain of events relating to his claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Estate Officer (AEO) under the J&K Tourism (Subordinate) Recruitment Rules, 1990. b) The undisputed factual matrix is that the applicant was selected by the J&K Services Selection Board and appointed as Junior Assistant in 2016, whereafter he discharged his duties with sincerity and to the satisfaction of his superiors.
On account of his unblemished service record, he was promoted as Senior Assistant in March 2023. The post of Assistant Estate Officer subsequently fell vacant due to the promotion of one Sh. Jagvinder Tak, prompting the Directorate of Tourism, Jammu (respondent department) to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting on 22.08.2023 vide communication No. DTJ/DPC/6120-27, for considering eligible Senior Assistants, including the applicant, for promotion against the said post. c) The DPC examined multiple applications but, instead of concluding the selection, observed ambiguities regarding the rule position under Schedule II-A of the J&K Tourism (Subordinate) Recruitment Rules, 1990, which provides that the post of Assistant Estate Officer is to be filled “by promotion from Class-IV, Category-A, on the basis of merit-cum-seniority having knowledge of maintenance of stock and experience as Storekeeper for three years.”
The Committee decided to seek clarification from the competent authority regarding the applicability of the “merit-cum-seniority” principle and the reckoning of experience as Storekeeper. d) Accordingly, a communication dated 06.12.2023 was addressed by respondent No. 2 to the Deputy Advocate General (D.A.G.), who furnished his opinion vide Ref. No. HG/DAG/2023/967/8542 dated 23.12.2023, confirming that the rules did not restrict the counting of Storekeeper experience only from the date of promotion as Senior Assistant.
Meanwhile, to ensure factual verification, the Directorate constituted a six-member sub-committee vide order No. DTJ/Gen/240/1812-83 dated 10.02.2024, comprising officers from multiple departments, to scrutinize documents and verify experience credentials of all eligible candidates. e) The sub-committee, upon detailed deliberations, submitted its report in December 2023, concluding that the applicant alone satisfied the prescribed eligibility criteria, having served as Storekeeper for more than the requisite period and possessing knowledge of stock and record maintenance. The report was duly forwarded to the Directorate for further consideration. f) However, despite the completion of the verification process and receipt of legal clarification, the respondents did not finalize the promotion case, leading to prolonged inaction.
Aggrieved by the delay, the applicant filed O.A. No. 483/2024, wherein this Hon’ble Tribunal, by order dated 03.05.2024, directed the respondents to treat the said O.A. as a representation of the applicant and to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, keeping in view the DAG’s opinion dated 23.12.2023 and the findings of the six-member sub-committee dated 10.02.2024. The Tribunal further directed that the entire exercise be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. g) Despite service of the Tribunal’s order on 07.05.2024, the respondents failed to comply, neither deciding the applicant’s case nor communicating any outcome within the prescribed period. Consequently, the applicant-initiated Contempt Petition No. 145/2024, alleging willful defiance of the directions contained in the order dated 03.05.2024.
During the contempt proceedings, this Tribunal granted a final opportunity to the respondent/contemnor on 06.09.2024 to ensure compliance and decide the matter in terms of the earlier order. h) In the meantime, instead of complying with the Tribunal’s directions, the Directorate issued minutes of meeting dated 25.07.2024, circulated vide No. DTJ/MOM/8411-16 dated 11.11.2024, purporting to nullify all previous DPC proceedings and recommendations made since August 2023.
The said minutes further stated that neither the opinion of the D.A.G. nor the directions of this Tribunal could be taken into account and alleged that the DPC minutes of 11.01.2024 were unsigned by members, though, in fact, at least one member, Deputy Director (Adm.) Umesh Sharma, had duly signed them.
The applicant alleged that such action was intended to frustrate the earlier findings of the DPC and sub-committee that had found him eligible for promotion. i) Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed O.A. No. 1253/2024, challenging the minutes dated 25.07.2024 and seeking quashment of the impugned decision.
This Hon’ble Tribunal, vide order dated 20.11.2024, directed the respondents to take the official communication dated 27.07.2024 to its logical conclusion and to decide the matter in conformity with the earlier judgment dated 03.05.2024 in O.A. No. 483/2024. j) However, instead of implementing the Tribunal’s directions, the respondents again sought clarification from the Administrative Department, which issued a fresh impugned communication No. TSM-Estb/76/2024(CC No. 7599210) dated 06.03.2025, stating that the requisite experience as Storekeeper shall be reckoned only from the date of promotion as Senior Assistant........................
.......The direction issued by this Hon’ble Tribunal was to pass a reasoned and speaking order keeping in view the opinion of the Deputy Advocate General dated 23.12.2023 and the findings of the six-member committee dated 10.02.2024. The respondents, instead of complying with the said direction, have deliberately sought a fresh clarification from the Administrative Department on 20.11.2024, thereby rendering the earlier DPC proceedings, legal advice, and sub-committee report redundant.
The respondents’ attempt to disregard both these authoritative references reflects malafides and an intention to deny legitimate promotion to the applicant. f) The plea of the respondents that the DPC could not arrive at a decision due to multiple interpretations of the rules is an afterthought and self-serving.
The record shows that the DPC, in its meeting dated 22.08.2023, had already finalized the list of eligible candidates and only sought formal concurrence regarding the rule position. The respondents’ subsequent steps of constituting a committee, holding further meetings, and then referring the matter again to the Administrative Department are part of a calculated design to delay the process and frustrate the Tribunal’s earlier judgment. g) It is also submitted that the minutes of meeting dated 25.07.2024, circulated vide No. DTJ/MOM/8411-16 dated 11.11.2024, and the impugned clarification dated 06.03.2025, are both contrary to the directions of this Tribunal and hence non est in law.
The applicant has already produced documentary proof that the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 11.01.2024 were duly signed by at least one member, namely, the Deputy Director (Adm.) Umesh Sharma. The respondents’ contention that the proceedings were unsigned is factually wrong and unsupported by any record.
The official communication dated 27.07.2024 issued by the same Directorate acknowledges that the minutes were not finalized due to internal delay, thereby confirming that the record was complete and awaiting formal approval. h) The contention that the applicant’s repeated litigation has delayed the process is untenable.
The delay is solely attributable to the respondents who, despite clear judicial directions, neither decided the applicant’s representation nor implemented the DPC’s recommendations.
It is a settled principle of law that when an authority fails to act in compliance with a judicial order, the aggrieved party cannot be faulted for seeking enforcement through appropriate legal remedies.
i) The respondents’ justification that the Administrative Department’s clarification was binding and had to be followed is also misconceived.
The clarification cannot override statutory rules or judicial directions. The Administrative Department’s role is limited to interpretation consistent with the rule framework; it cannot impose new conditions of eligibility which the rule-making authority itself never prescribed.
Moreover, the clarification dated 06.03.2025 makes no reference to the Tribunal’s order or to the earlier sub-committee findings, clearly showing that it was issued independently and in disregard of judicial directions.
j) The applicant reiterates that the impugned clarification has the effect of depriving him of his legitimate right of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Estate Officer, despite his being the only eligible candidate fulfilling the criteria of experience and merit-cum-seniority.
The respondents’ repeated reliance on procedural formalities and fresh clarifications is a clear abuse of process intended to defeat the Tribunal’s earlier orders. k) It is respectfully submitted that the respondents have committed willful disobedience of this Tribunal’s orders dated 03.05.2024 in O.A. No. 483/2024 and 20.11.2024 in O.A. No. 1253/2024, which required them to decide the matter by a reasoned and speaking order in light of the existing record.
The subsequent clarification and impugned actions are designed to bypass those orders and hence amount to contemptuous non-compliance.
l) In view of the above, the applicant most respectfully prays that the false and misleading averments made in the reply be rejected, and it be held that the impugned communication dated 06.03.2025 has been issued in violation of statutory rules and judicial directions.
The applicant further prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to finalize the DPC proceedings initiated in August 2023, treating the applicant as eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Estate Officer in accordance with the findings of the sub- committee dated 10.02.2024 and the directions issued by this Hon’ble Tribunal in its earlier orders. :: 28 ::O.A. Nos. 1253/2024, 250/2025 & CP 145/2024 m) The applicant reserves the right to make further submissions and place additional documents on record, if required, for effective adjudication of the matter in the interest of justice.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
6. These Original Applications (O.A. No. 1253/2024 and O.A. No. 250/2025) along with Contempt Petition No. 145/2024 are being disposed of by this common judgment, as the issues involved are substantially interlinked and arise out of the same sequence of departmental proceedings concerning promotion to the post of Assistant Estates Officer (AEO) in the Directorate of Tourism, Jammu.
7. The applicant, Shri Ajay Parshad Sharma, seeks quashing of the impugned communication dated 06.03.2025 issued by the Administrative Department, whereby clarification regarding the reckoning of service experience for eligibility to the post of Assistant Estates Officer was issued, restricting the qualifying period to be counted only from the date of promotion as Senior Assistant.
He also assails the administrative inaction and alleged misplacement of departmental records relating to the DPC proceedings held from August 2023 onwards, terming the entire process as arbitrary, contrary to statutory rules, and violative of the Tribunal’s earlier directions in O.A. No. 483/2024 and O.A. No. 1253/2024.
8. The applicant joined the Tourism Department as Junior Assistant in 2016, and due to his satisfactory service, was subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant in March 2023.
Since January 2019, he has been holding additional charge of Incharge Estate Section, Directorate of Tourism, Jammu, where he has been maintaining stock and store records continuously and independently.
9. In August 2023, the respondent department convened a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) through communication No. DTJ/DPC/6120-27 dated 18.08.2023, to consider promotion to the post of Assistant Estates Officer.
Eleven candidates were considered, but the applicant alone was found to possess the requisite experience as Storekeeper for more than three years. The DPC, however, decided to seek legal clarification regarding the interpretation of the rule governing “merit-cum-seniority” and the period of service required for promotion.
10. The Deputy Advocate General, in his opinion, clarified that the applicant met all eligibility conditions under the J&K Tourism (Subordinate) Recruitment Rules, 1990. A six-member sub- committee, constituted thereafter, reaffirmed that the applicant was the sole eligible candidate for promotion. Despite such concurrence, the department did not act upon these findings, leading the applicant to approach this Tribunal in O.A. No. 483/2024, which was disposed of with directions for reconsideration of his case.
11. Instead of implementing the directions, the respondents sought fresh clarification from the Administrative Department on 20.11.2024, omitting crucial facts — notably, that all other candidates had already been rejected for want of merit. This led to a contradictory opinion being issued on 06.03.2025, which restricted the qualifying service experience to be counted only from the date of promotion as Senior Assistant.
12. Meanwhile, departmental records and minutes of the DPC meeting held on 11.01.2024 were reported as “misplaced.”????????
A show-cause notice was issued on 22.07.2024 to the delinquent official. However, no disciplinary action followed. Curiously, in his written reply dated 08.08.2025, the erring official admitted the records were missing and tendered an apology, yet the Department in its affidavit before the Tribunal asserted that “no records are missing and all DPC files are safe.” This contradiction led to the filing of O.A. No. 250/2025 and the connected Contempt Petition No. 145/2024.
13. The applicant, through written submissions, has contended that as per Schedule I-A of the J&K Tourism (Subordinate) Recruitment Rules, 1990, an official can be promoted as Assistant Estates Officer on a merit-cum-seniority basis, provided he “possesses knowledge of maintenance of stocks and has experience as Storekeeper for three years.” The feeder posts include Senior Assistant, Clerk-cum-Typist, Storekeeper-cum-Accounts Clerk, Cashier, Typist, and Sub-Divisional Clerk.
14. It is further contended that nowhere do the Rules specify that such experience must be counted from the date of promotion as Senior Assistant. Thus, the clarification dated 06.03.2025 amounts to an unwarranted amendment of the rules by executive fiat. The applicant’s service as Incharge Estates since 2019 involved maintaining records and stock, fully satisfying the experiential criteria. Ignoring this period would be unjust and inequitable, especially when the duties performed were substantially identical to those of a Storekeeper.
The Department’s contradictory stance regarding missing DPC records— admitting loss in one communication and denying it in affidavit— shows mala fides and institutional bias aimed at thwarting the applicant’s promotion.
The impugned clarification directly contravenes prior directions of this Tribunal and the legal opinion of the Deputy Advocate General. The respondents’ conduct amounts to deliberate non-compliance. The applicant seeks quashing of the impugned clarification, direction to consider his promotion from the date of first DPC meeting (22.08.2023), and an inquiry into the disappearance of DPC records.
15. The respondents, in their reply, contend that the applicant’s claim is premature as the matter required administrative clarification. They argue that promotion cannot be based solely on a legal opinion and that the clarification dated 06.03.2025 was issued to remove ambiguity. The respondents deny any loss of records and assert that all files remain secure. 16. This Tribunal finds as follows: A. On the Interpretation of Rules:
17. The J&K Tourism (Subordinate) Recruitment Rules, 1990 clearly stipulate “three years’ experience as Storekeeper” as the qualifying criterion. The rule does not confine the computation of such experience to the date of promotion as Senior Assistant. Introducing such a restriction through administrative clarification is impermissible and contrary to settled law that statutory rules cannot be amended or modified by executive instructions.
18. Nowhere in the Rules has it been provided that the prescribed three years' experience is to be computed only from the date an official attains the post of Senior Assistant as while doing so the other posts in the feeder category shall remain devoid of consideration for the promotion.
Further, the official was assigned the charge of Incharge, Estate Section while serving as a Junior Assistant.
Therefore, the period during which the official actually discharged the duties and responsibilities of the post for which he now seeks promotion/confirmation cannot be ignored. Non-consideration of this period would be unjust and inequitable as the post of Junior Assistant falls within the same category of service as that of Typist as is reflected from Schedule I-A appended with the Recruitment rules of the service, which has been duly recognized as a feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Estates Officer.
19. Learned counsel Mr. F.A. Natnoo submitted that the clarification contained in Para (i) of the impůgned communication dated 06.03.2024 is, therefore, ex facie contrary to the rule position.
Furthermore, it has also been established that the impugned communication fails to take into account the proceedings and deliberations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) conducted over the past two years. Indeed, under Para (ii), the said communication directs consideration of Senior Assistants higher in the seniority list. However, it is evident that the issue of eligibility of all claimants had already culminated in a conclusive decision, as reflected in the minutes of the DPC meeting dated 25.10.2024, wherein at page 113 Annexure A9 of OA 250/2025, while specifically showing the applicant herein under third column from right, as the only eligible incumbent, it was specifically recorded under column Ist as under: - “....With regard to the filling of the post of AEO, the available records, certificates and other documents submitted by various claimants were examined and were found to be devoid of merits.
It was decided by the then Committee to seek clarification regarding rule position with regard to 'merit-cum- seniority' and service period for the post of AEO, as one incumbent's eligibility/non-eligibility. namely Mr. Ajay Prashad Sharma, Senior Assistant, depends upon interpretation of the said rule......” 20. However, despite the aforesaid concluded decision taken in the matter, apparently the said fact has not been communicated by the office of respondent No. 2 to the office of respondent No. 1, which has thus resulted in issuance of communication/decision impugned under impugned para-ii. B. On the Applicant’s Experience:
21. The undisputed fact that the applicant has served as Incharge Estates since January 2019, maintaining stores and stock registers, fulfills the essential experiential requirement. The Department’s own DPC and sub-committee reports twice affirmed his eligibility.
Hence, the later stand of ineligibility is arbitrary and unsustainable. C. On Administrative Conduct and Record Misplacement:
22. The inconsistent departmental statements—admitting misplacement of DPC records in one communication and denying it in affidavit— reflect serious procedural lapses and possible suppression of material facts. The Tribunal cannot countenance such evasive conduct, particularly when judicial directions were in place.
The respondents’ failure to act despite repeated DPC proceedings (22.08.2023, 11.01.2024, 25.10.2024) and interim orders dated 20.11.2024 demonstrates administrative indifference bordering on contempt. On Violation of Judicial Orders:
23. The impugned clarification dated 06.03.2025 is in direct contravention of the Tribunal’s earlier directions issued in O.A. No. 483/2024 and O.A. No. 1253/2024, which required the Department to finalize the applicant’s case in accordance with the legal opinion and sub- committee report. The respondents’ conduct defeats the principle that “an act of court shall prejudice no one.” On Equity and Legitimate Expectation:
24. The applicant had a legitimate expectation that his promotion, already endorsed by the DPC and supported by legal opinion, would be implemented. Denying the same on a newly invented interpretation not only violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but also constitutes abuse of administrative discretion.
25. In light of the foregoing analysis, the Tribunal holds that the impugned communication dated 06.03.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, being contrary to the statutory rules and prior directions of this Tribunal.
26. Accordingly, these Original Applications are allowed with the following directions: a) The clarification contained in Para (i) & (ii) of impugned communication No. TSM-Estb/76/2024 (CC No. 7599210) dated 06.03.2025, restricting reckoning of the qualifying experience only from the date of promotion as Senior Assistant, is quashed and set aside.
b) The respondents are directed to promote the applicant to the post of Assistant Estates Officer with effect from 22.08.2023 (the date of first DPC meeting), strictly in accordance with the J&K Tourism (Subordinate) Recruitment Rules, 1990, the legal opinion of the Dy. Advocate General, and the DPC/sub- committee findings, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
c) Insofar as the issue relating to the misplacement of DPC records, the Director, Tourism Jammu shall hold a comprehensive departmental inquiry, fix accountability, and submit a detailed report to the Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
d) The applicant shall be entitled to notional promotion from 22.08.2023 with all consequential benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, subject to verification of service records and rule compliance. e) The Contempt Petition No. 145/2024 is accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the applicant to revive the same in case of non-compliance within the stipulated time.
27. Ordered accordingly.
28. No order as to costs.
|