Saroj Bala vs SPORTS AND YOUTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT on 16 October 2026

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: - a) allow the instant Original Application; b) quash communications dated 28.04.2022 addressed by respondent no. 2 to the applicants, whereby and whereunder, the applicants have been reverted from the post of Incharge Physical Education Masters to the post of Physical Education Teachers after a period of almost 11 years, inasmuch as the applicant no. 1 & 2 were promoted from the post of Physical Education Teachers to the post of Physical Education Masters on incharge basis in their own pay and grade with charge allowance vide order No. DYSS/Estt/1978-2019 dated 05.06.2012 & order No. DYSS/Estt./7340-57 dated 21.10.2011 respectively;

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 1237/2022

c) direct the respondents more particularly respondent no. 1 & 2 to confirm and regularize the services of the applicant no. 1 & 2 as Physical Education Masters w.e.f. 05.06.2012 & 21.10.2011 respectively with all consequential benefits including seniority, in-situ (non-functional) promotion; d) direct the respondents to release the pay scale attached to the post of Physical Education Master in favour of the applicant no. 1 & 2 alongwith arrears w.e.f. 05.06.2012 & 21.10.2011 respectively, till formal order of promotion/regularization of the applicants as physical education Master is passed by the respondents e) ANY other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;”

2. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the communications dated 28.04.2022, whereby their placements as Incharge Physical Education Masters were withdrawn and they were

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 1237/2022

reverted to the posts of Physical Education Teachers. The applicants have also sought regularization of their services as Physical Education Masters from the dates of their respective incharge promotions, along with consequential service benefits.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were initially appointed as Physical Education Teachers in the Department of Youth Services and Sports. In order to acquire the qualifications required for promotion to the post of Physical Education Master, they applied for permission to pursue higher studies through the proper departmental channel. The Director, Youth Services and Sports, granted permission to them to undergo BPE courses.

4. After acquiring the required qualifications, applicant No. 1, Saroj Bala, was placed as Incharge Physical Education Master vide order dated 05.06.2012, whereas applicant No. 2, Kanchan Sharma, was similarly placed vide order dated 21.10.2011. According to the applicants, they continued to discharge the duties of the higher posts for almost eleven years. However, their placements were withdrawn through the impugned communications dated 28.04.2022 on the

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 1237/2022

ground that permission to pursue higher studies had not been granted by the competent authority.

5. The applicants contend that they had applied for permission through the proper channel and that the permission was granted by the Director, Youth Services and Sports, who was the head of the Directorate. They submit that they cannot be made to suffer for an irregularity committed by the departmental authorities. It is further contended that several similarly situated employees were granted regular promotions, whereas the applicants were reverted after serving on the higher posts for many years.

6. The respondents, on the other hand, submit that the applicants had acquired their higher qualifications without obtaining proper permission and sanction of study leave from the competent authority. It is stated that a committee constituted by the Administrative Department examined the matter and found irregularities relating to the grant of permission, leave availed and attendance during the courses. On the basis of the committee’s recommendations, ex-post facto approval was refused and the temporary incharge placements of

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 1237/2022

the applicants were withdrawn. The respondents maintain that the applicants have no vested right to regular promotion merely because they continued on the higher posts on an incharge basis.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the pleadings and material available on record.

8. The principal question which arises for our consideration is whether the respondents were justified in withdrawing the incharge promotions of the applicants after almost eleven years, particularly when the applicants had pursued their higher studies on the basis of permission granted by the Director, Youth Services and Sports.

9. At the outset, we find that the controversy involved in the present Original Application is no longer res integra. An identical issue has already been considered and decided by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 552/2022 titled Jatinder Singh & Others v. UT of J&K & Others, decided on 04.02.2026.

10. In the aforesaid case, the applicants were also serving as Incharge Physical Education Masters and their placements had been withdrawn through communications dated 28.04.2022 on the ground that the

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 1237/2022

permission granted for pursuing BPE/B.P.Ed. courses had not been issued by the competent authority. The respondents had relied upon the same departmental exercise and the decision refusing ex-post facto approval.

11. After examining the matter in detail, this Tribunal held that employees who had applied for permission through the proper departmental channel and had acted upon permission granted by the departmental authorities could not be made to suffer for administrative irregularities for which they were not responsible. The Tribunal also considered the long period during which the applicants had discharged the duties of Physical Education Masters and the failure of the respondents to afford them an opportunity of hearing before withdrawing their placements.

12. The Tribunal further observed that the Department could not adopt different standards for similarly situated employees. Where other employees who had acquired qualifications under similar circumstances were granted regularization, the cases of the applicants could not be rejected without proper justification. The Tribunal

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: O.A. No. 1237/2022

accordingly held that the impugned reversion communications were arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

13. Consequently, O.A. No. 552/2022 was allowed vide judgment dated 04.02.2026. The communications dated 28.04.2022 and the enquiry reports dated 11.01.2022 and 19.01.2022 were quashed. The respondents were further directed to regularize the services of the applicants as Physical Education Masters from the dates on which they became entitled to promotion, together with consequential benefits.

14. Coming to the present case, we find that the facts are substantially identical. The applicants herein were also granted permission to pursue higher studies by the Director, Youth Services and Sports. They were thereafter placed as Incharge Physical Education Masters in 2011 and 2012 and continued to serve on the higher posts for a considerable period. Their placements were subsequently withdrawn through the communications dated 28.04.2022 on the same ground regarding the competency of the authority which had granted

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: O.A. No. 1237/2022

permission. However, it is necessary to clarify that the date of incharge placement and the date on which an employee becomes entitled to regular promotion may not necessarily be the same. The date of entitlement may be later, depending upon the applicable rules, eligibility and availability of promotional vacancies.

15. The respondents have not brought to our notice any material distinction which would justify taking a different view in the present case. The objections raised by them regarding the validity of permission, sanction of study leave, temporary nature of incharge promotion and findings of the committee were also examined by this Tribunal while deciding O.A. No. 552/2022.

16. We are of the considered view that when an identical controversy has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive similar treatment. Judicial consistency requires that a different view should not be taken unless there are material differences in the facts or circumstances of the case. No such distinction has been established in the present matter.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: O.A. No. 1237/2022

17. The applicants had applied for permission to pursue higher studies through the proper departmental channel and acted upon the permission granted by the Director, Youth Services and Sports. After acquiring the required qualifications, they were placed as Incharge Physical Education Masters and continued to discharge the duties of the higher posts for several years. If there was any irregularity in the manner in which permission was granted, the respondents were required to examine the matter fairly and in accordance with law. The applicants could not be made to suffer merely because of an administrative lapse for which they were not responsible.

18. It is also important to note that the applicants were allowed to work on the higher posts for almost eleven years. Their placements were subsequently withdrawn without affording them a proper opportunity of hearing. The same issue was examined in O.A. No. 552/2022, wherein this Tribunal found the action of the respondents to be arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

19. At the same time, we are conscious that an incharge promotion is generally a temporary arrangement and does not, by itself, confer an

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: O.A. No. 1237/2022

automatic right to regular promotion from the date of such placement. Regular promotion depends upon fulfillment of the prescribed eligibility conditions, availability of vacancies, seniority and other requirements under the applicable service rules. Therefore, while the applicants are entitled to the benefit of the judgment in O.A. No. 552/2022, their regularization must take effect from the dates on which they actually became entitled to regular promotion in accordance with the applicable rules. Such dates may be different from the dates of their initial incharge placements.

20. We further find that the applicants cannot be denied the benefit of promotion merely because the Department failed to take timely steps for regularization. If similarly situated employees have already been granted regular promotion, the respondents are required to ensure that the applicants are not placed at a disadvantage without any lawful justification. Their entitlement must be determined fairly, keeping in view their eligibility, seniority, availability of promotional posts and the treatment extended to similarly situated employees.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: O.A. No. 1237/2022

21. In view of the above discussion, we find that the present Original Application is covered by the judgment dated 04.02.2026 passed in O.A. No. 552/2022, titled Jatinder Singh & Others v. UT of J&K & Others. The applicants are entitled to similar relief. However, the effective dates of their regular promotions shall be determined with reference to the dates on which they became eligible and entitled to such promotions under the applicable rules, and not automatically from the dates of their incharge placements.

22. Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed with the following directions: a) The impugned communications dated 28.04.2022, whereby the incharge placements of the applicants as Physical Education Masters were withdrawn, are hereby quashed. b) The enquiry report dated 11.01.2022 and the consequential decision dated 19.01.2022, insofar as they relate to the applicants and form the basis of their reversion, are also quashed.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: O.A. No. 1237/2022

c) The respondents are directed to restore the status of the applicants as Incharge Physical Education Masters and to regularize their promotions to the posts of Physical Education Masters with effect from the respective dates on which they became entitled to regular promotion, keeping in view their eligibility, seniority, availability of promotional vacancies and the applicable service rules. d) It is clarified that the dates of regular promotion shall not automatically be treated as 05.06.2012 in the case of applicant No. 1, Saroj Bala, and 21.10.2011 in the case of applicant No. 2, Kanchan Sharma, merely because they were placed as Incharge Physical Education Masters on those dates. The respondents shall determine the actual dates of their entitlement to regular promotion in accordance with the applicable rules and the treatment extended to similarly situated employees. e) Upon regularization, the applicants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits, including seniority, pay fixation, arrears of pay and other admissible benefits, with effect from

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 16 :: O.A. No. 1237/2022

the dates on which their regular promotions become due. Any monetary benefits for the period during which they actually discharged the duties of the higher posts shall be regulated in accordance with the applicable rules. f) The respondents shall complete the entire exercise and issue the necessary orders within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

23. With the above directions, the Original Application stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

/harshit /

HARSHIT YADAV