- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- High Court of J & K and Ladakh
- /
- Govt Dept Committed Illegality By...
Govt Dept Committed Illegality By Withdrawing Posts After Recruitment Had Already Begun: J&K High Court Directs Restoration Of Slots
Aleem Syeed
21 Feb 2025 6:00 AM
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a government department would be committing an illegality by usurping the quota meant to be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of merit through promotion. The court ruled that the government officials, in this case, had acted illegally by withdrawing as many as 29 out of 42 referred posts and filling them through promotion after the exam...
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a government department would be committing an illegality by usurping the quota meant to be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of merit through promotion. The court ruled that the government officials, in this case, had acted illegally by withdrawing as many as 29 out of 42 referred posts and filling them through promotion after the exam and interview for direct recruitment had already been conducted.
The court observed that when the petitioners were promoted to Junior Assistants, there were no posts available in the promotion quota. Instead, the quota meant for direct recruitment was utilized by withdrawing 29 posts out of 42, which is not permissible under the law. This withdrawal of posts unnecessarily affected the private respondents, who had qualified based on merit and were due for appointment had the official respondents not withdrawn these posts.
A bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta directed the restoration of the 29 withdrawn posts to be filled based on merit. It also ruled that the appointments should be made retrospectively from the date when other candidates were appointed to the same posts. Furthermore, the court directed that the appointment process be completed within three months.
BACKGROUND
In this case, 42 posts for Junior Assistants were advertised. After the exams and interviews were conducted, the Chief Education Officer issued a notification withdrawing 29 of the 42 posts to be filled through the promotion quota. This notification was challenged before the tribunal, which set it aside. The promotees then challenged the tribunal's order before the High Court, arguing that they had not been made parties before the tribunal.
The court, however, observed that the Chief Education Officer did not follow the law and had usurped the quota of direct recruits by making substantive promotions of Class IV employees, including the writ petitioners, to the extent of 27 posts of Junior Assistants. To cover up these illegal promotions, the officer further issued a communication to the Board withdrawing 29 of the 42 originally referred posts.
The court, therefore, directed the restoration of the withdrawn posts and further ruled that, after making recruitment based on merit, if the promotees are required to be demoted, they must be given a due opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
APPEARANCE:
Shuja-ul-Haq, Advocate For Petitioners
T. M. Shamsi, DSGI for Respondents
Case-Title: Syed Murtaza & ors vs Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 50