JAMMU, Apr 4: Division Bench of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Dhar has upheld the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal where draft redrawn seniority list of senior KAS officer was quashed.
DB added that, it was not open to the Government to alter the seniority list to the detriment of the respondents without hearing them and once the Government accepted the judgment of the Tribunal, whereby order dated 24.06.2011 was upheld, it could not have altered the seniority list without challenging the judgment by way of appropriate proceedings.
It is to mention here that the CAT, while dismissing the petitions challenging the final seniority list dated June 24, 2011, had set-aside the order dated order dated 01.02.2000, constituting a committee to review the final seniority list dated 24.06.2011 and the Government order dated 05.08.2020, revising the final seniority list dated 24.06.2011.
The CAT also held that Rule 15 (4) of 2008 Rules and Clause (1) of the proviso thereof are illegal and contrary to law.
Division Bench of High Court after hearing observed that after the order dated 30.03.2021 was passed by the Jammu Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, the official respondents issued a seniority list, whereby the private respondents Dr Ghulam Nabi Itoo and Tariq Hussain Ganai were placed at Serial No. 200 & 202, respectively.
Both the private respondents challenged the seniority list dated 07.04.2021 on the grounds that only option open before the official respondents was either to file a writ petition against order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Tribunal or to file a review application before the Tribunal and once the seniority list was upheld by the Tribunal, the issuing authority had become functus officio.
DB added that if the seniority list dated 07.04.2021 was quashed to the extent of private respondents, then as a natural consequence, the seniority list dated 26.04.2011 except to the extent of placing 49 members, adjusted against training and leave vacancies, at the bottom, would govern the seniority & therefore, this contention of the petitioners is not sustainable in the eyes of law & we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, so as to warrant any interference at the end of this court.
|