G R BHAT Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this petition order No. 113 -Agri of 2000 dated: 04 -04 -2000 is sought to be quashed, whereunder the final seniority list issued under Govt. order No. 298 -Agri of 1997 dated: 02 -05 -1997 was modified and respondent No. 4, who in the final seniority list figured at S.No. 20 was brought up and placed at S.No. 6 -A. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the final seniority list was never challenged nor was it put to any judicial scrutiny. Therefore, the placement of respondent No. 4 over and above the petitioners is illegal, as the same was done, without hearing the petitioners.

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that they are senior. It be made clear that petitioner were placed in the revised grade of Area Marketing Office on 23 -07 -1987, while as respondent No. 4 has been placed in the same grade with effect from 01 -04 -1987. Induction of respondent No. 4 was ordered vide Govt. order No. 433 -Agri of 1988 dated: 16 -03 -1988. For making things clear, it is deemed proper to reproduce the text of this order, which reads as under: - Government order No. 433 -AGRI of 1988 dated: 16 -03 -1988. Pursuant to Government order No. 2018 -GD of 1987 dated: 13 -11 -1987, sanction is accorded to the transfer of the post of Area Marketing Officers, from the Department of Horticulture (P&M) to the civil secretariat for purpose of drawal of pay of Shri B.A. Banday posted as RPO to Honâ„¢ble Agriculture Minister. It is further ordered that the above order shall take effect from the date Shri Banday was posted as RPO to Honâ„¢ble Agriculture Minister i.e. fromOl -04 -1987. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. 

(3.) THE petitioners have not assailed the above quoted order. It be noted that respondent No. 4 is a direct recruit and the petitioners have come from service. Appointment of respondent No. 4 was originally made vide Govt. order No. 2018 -GD of 1987 dated: 13 -11 -1987. After his appointment when a tentative seniority list was drawn, respondent No. 4 was made to figure in the cadre of gazetted officers of the Horticulture Department. A group of officers aggrieved by his placement in the cadre of officers filed SWP 1186/95, asking for deletion of his name from the seniority list and for quashing his appointment order. This court on 07 -10 -1998 while disposing of that writ petition held as under: - The main ground of challenge is that private respondent was not qualified for the post and has been illegally appointed. However, there is not a whisper in the petition explaining the delay of eight years to challenge his appointment since 1987. Even otherwise, the order of appointment has been made in relaxation of rules and since he was a member of the Secretariat as PRO to the Minister for Agriculture, his appointment is by transfer which is permissible under rules because direct appointment includes appointment by transfer. Assuming that he did not fulfill the qualification, the order of appointment being in relaxation of rules, the qualification is deemed to have been relaxed by the Government. While upholding the appointment of respondent No. 4, the court in the same judgment added as under: - In any case the order of appointment having not been challenged for more than eight years, the same cannot be challenged while challenging the tentative seniority list. So far as the challenge to the seniority list is concerned, the petition is premature as it is subject to objections.