Narinder Kumar Sharma vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 15 October 2026

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: - a) That the applicants may be directed to be promoted as regular Principal from the year 2014 as the juniors of the applicants have given effect from 2008,2009 etc. in the aforementioned orders and also in the minutes of meeting.

2. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking directions to the respondents to grant them regular promotion/regularization as Principals in the School Education Department with retrospective effect from the dates on which, according to them, they became eligible and their juniors were granted such benefits. They have also sought consequential financial and pensionary benefits.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

3. The applicants submit that they served the School Education Department of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir for several years and were promoted to different teaching and administrative posts during their service. They were subsequently placed as Incharge Principals but were not granted regular promotion to the post of Principal before their retirement. Their grievance is that despite possessing the necessary qualifications and experience, their cases were not regularized, whereas several other employees were subsequently granted regularization with retrospective effect.

4. Applicant No. 1, Narinder Kumar Sharma, submits that he was promoted as Senior Lecturer in the year 2011 and became eligible for promotion as Principal in the year 2014. However, he was not promoted at the relevant time. He approached the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, following which one post of Principal was transferred to the State Institute of Education, Jammu, from the overall cadre strength for the purpose of drawing his salary. Thereafter, vide Government Order No. 207-Edu of 2017 dated 27.04.2017, he was placed as Incharge Principal for six months or until the post was filled on a regular basis, whichever was earlier. He

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

submits that his vigilance clearance had also been obtained, but his services were not regularized as Principal.

5. Applicant No. 2, Virinder Kumar Vaid, submits that he was promoted as Senior Lecturer in the year 2011 and thereafter placed as Incharge Principal vide Government Order No. 26-Edu of 2014 dated 04.01.2014, in his own pay and grade. According to the applicants, applicant No. 1 was also entitled to similar placement at that time, but his case was delayed due to the inaction of the department.

6. Applicant No. 3, Tirath Ram, was also placed as Incharge Principal vide Government Order No. 26-Edu of 2014 dated 04.01.2014, wherein his name appeared at Serial No. 87. Similarly, applicant No. 4, Swaran Lata, was placed as Incharge Principal vide Government Order No. 575-Edu of 2015 dated 30.10.2015, in her own pay and grade. Her name appeared at Serial No. 3 of the said order. The applicants submit that both had acquired the necessary experience and were entitled to regular promotion under the applicable rules.

7. Applicant No. 5, Riaz Hussain Mintoo, submits that he was promoted as Senior Lecturer on 16.03.2005 and thereafter placed as Incharge

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

Principal vide Government Order No. 402-Edu of 2011 dated 07.07.2011. Applicant No. 6, Rafiqua Banoo, was also promoted as Senior Lecturer on 16.03.2005 and subsequently placed as Incharge Principal vide Government Order No. 656-Edu of 2010 dated 13.08.2010. Both applicants claim that they were entitled to regular promotion from the dates of their respective placements as Incharge Principals.

8. Applicant No. 7, Subash Chander, submits that he was initially appointed as Teacher on 23.10.1978, promoted as Master on 30.04.1988, Lecturer on 29.08.1991 and Senior Lecturer on 16.03.2005. He was thereafter placed as Incharge Principal at Higher Secondary School, Silmone, Kargil, vide Government Order No. 574- Edu of 2011 dated 19.10.2011. He retired from service on 31.08.2013 without being granted regular promotion as Principal. He claims that he was entitled to regularization from the date of his placement as Incharge Principal.

9. Applicant No. 8, Chhailo Ram, submits that he joined the department as Teacher on 31.01.1966 and was promoted as Headmaster in the year 1992. He was thereafter adjusted as Zonal Education Planning

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

Officer at Malahar, District Kathua, and joined on 11.11.1993. His services as Headmaster were regularized vide Government Order No. 630-Education of 2000 dated 21.06.2000, notionally with effect from 21.09.1992. Subsequently, he was promoted as Zonal Education Officer and his services were regularized through Government Order No. 494-Edu of 2011.

10. Applicant No. 8 further submits that vide Government Order No. 657- Education of 2005 dated 03.10.2005, he was placed as Incharge Principal at Higher Secondary School, Badnota, Kathua, against an available vacancy. He assumed charge on 10.10.2005 and continued to discharge the duties of the higher post. However, his services were not regularized before his retirement on 31.10.2007. He contends that he possessed the prescribed educational qualifications and experience and that his vigilance clearance had also been obtained. He claims regular promotion as Principal from the year 2005.

11. Applicant No. 9, Hisam-ud-Din Qureshi, submits that he was promoted as Senior Lecturer on 16.03.2005 and subsequently placed as Incharge Principal vide Government Order No. 402-Edu of 2011 dated 07.07.2011. According to him, he was entitled to regular

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

promotion from the date of his placement as Incharge Principal, but the department failed to take the necessary steps.

12. The applicants further submit that the Jammu and Kashmir Education (Gazetted Services Recruitment) Rules, 1992, provided for promotion to the post of Principal from the prescribed feeder categories, subject to fulfillment of the required qualifications and experience. Initially, five years of experience was prescribed, which was subsequently reduced to three years by amendment in 2010. They contend that they fulfilled the applicable eligibility conditions and were entitled to be considered for regular promotion against the available vacancies.

13. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the final seniority list of Senior Lecturers was issued vide Government Order No. 126-Edu of 2020 dated 26.05.2020. The applicants claim that their seniority and length of service were not properly taken into account while granting retrospective regularization to other officers.

14. The principal grievance of the applicants is that private respondent Nos. 3 to 12 were granted regular promotion or regularization as Principals through various Government Orders issued during 2021,

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

including Government Order No. 464-Edu of 2021, Government Order No. 1147-Edu of 2021 dated 09.07.2021 and Government Order No. 1423-Edu of 2021 dated 14.09.2021. According to the applicants, some of these officers had earlier been placed as Incharge Principals but had not joined the higher posts, resulting in withdrawal or non- availing of their earlier promotions.

15. The applicants specifically refer to Government Order No. 239-Edu of 2008 dated 15.05.2008 and Government Order No. 49-Edu of 2009 dated 19.01.2009, under which the earlier placements of certain private respondents were withdrawn on account of their failure to join. They contend that despite such withdrawal, the private respondents were subsequently granted retrospective regularization, in some cases from the years 2008, 2009 and 2010.

16. According to the applicants, once the earlier placement orders of these officers had been withdrawn for non-joining, they could not have been granted retrospective benefits from those very dates without examining the consequences of their failure to join. The applicants have also relied upon Rule 24(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, in support of their contention regarding the seniority position of such officers.

17. The applicants further refer to the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 22.04.2021, wherein a number of Incharge Principals were recommended for regularization with retrospective effect. They submit that Table-C of the minutes included 70 Senior Lecturers who had either not availed their placements as Incharge Principals or whose service particulars or whereabouts were reportedly not available. Despite these circumstances, the applicants allege that such officers were granted the benefit of regularization, whereas their own cases were overlooked.

18. The applicants contend that no regular Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held for a considerable period between 2009 and 2021, resulting in an abnormal delay in regular promotions to the post of Principal. They submit that the department was required to hold DPC meetings periodically and that its failure to do so deprived eligible employees of their legitimate promotional opportunities. According to them, an employee should not suffer merely because the

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

department failed to complete the promotion process during his service.

19. The applicants also rely upon Government Order No. 743-GAD of 2007 dated 28.06.2007, which provides guidelines regarding the effective date of promotion and regularization. They submit that under these guidelines, the date of regularization is to be determined with reference to the date of placement against the higher post, availability of vacancy and eligibility, whichever is later. They contend that the respondents failed to apply these guidelines uniformly.

20. Applicant No. 1 also submitted a representation to the Government seeking regularization as Principal. In response, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, vide communication dated 01.09.2021, informed him that the vacancy for his regularization had accrued on 01.04.2018, whereas he had retired on 30.04.2017. It was further stated that his juniors were in active service on the relevant dates of availability of vacancies and, therefore, his case could not be considered for regularization in terms of Government Order No. 743-GAD of 2007 dated 28.06.2007.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

21. The applicants dispute this stand of the department. They submit that vacancies were available much earlier and that they had already acquired the necessary eligibility while serving as Incharge Principals. They further contend that the department cannot rely upon their retirement as a ground to deny regularization when the delay in holding DPC meetings and completing the promotion process was attributable to the department itself.

22. The applicants also refer to Government Order No. 1456-Edu of 2021 dated 27.09.2021, whereby further promotions were granted to other officers. They submit that these orders demonstrate that retrospective regularization was being granted to other employees, while the applicants, who had already retired, were denied similar benefits.

23. It is the case of the applicants that they have rendered long years of service and discharged the duties of Incharge Principals, but their claims for regular promotion remained unsettled until their retirement. They contend that the action of the respondents has caused them financial loss and adversely affected their pensionary benefits. The applicants have, therefore, approached this Tribunal seeking regular promotion/regularization as Principals from the dates on which they

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

claim to have become entitled, along with consequential fixation of pay, arrears and revision of pensionary benefits.

24. The official respondents have filed their reply opposing the Original Application. On merits, the respondents submit that the applicants served in the School Education Department and retired as Senior Lecturers/Incharge Principals. The final seniority list of Senior Lecturers was issued vide Government Order No. 126-Edu of 2020 dated 26.05.2020, wherein the seniority positions of the applicants as well as the private respondents were reflected.

25. The respondents submit that the service particulars, seniority positions, dates of placement as Incharge Principals and dates of availability of vacancies were examined by the department before granting regularization. According to them, the private respondents were granted regularization on the basis of their respective seniority positions, length of service, eligibility and availability of vacancies.

26. The respondents have furnished details of the private respondents to explain the basis on which regularization was granted. It is stated that Ravinder Goel was granted notional regularization with effect from

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

01.09.2008 and regularization from 03.08.2015 to 31.03.2021. Pardeep Kumar was granted notional regularization with effect from 01.11.2008 and regularization from 04.01.2014. Similarly, Bansi Lal Sharma was granted notional regularization with effect from 13.01.2009 and regularization from 04.01.2014 to 31.12.2016.

27. The respondents further submit that Sudesh K. Gupta was granted notional regularization with effect from 01.04.2010 and regularization from 04.01.2014 to 30.09.2017. Sushma Koul was granted regularization with effect from 29.04.2010. Ramesh Tikoo was granted notional regularization with effect from 01.11.2010 and regularization from 04.01.2014, whereas Gulzar Ahmed Bhat was granted notional regularization with effect from 04.08.2011 and regularization from 04.01.2014.

28. In respect of Prathiba Wazir, Roma Muku and Ravi Kar, the respondents have stated in their reply that regularization orders had not been issued in their favour. The respondents maintain that the cases of the private respondents were dealt with in accordance with their service records and the applicable rules.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

29. The respondents further submit that a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 22.04.2021 for regularization of Incharge Principals and equivalent officers as Principals and equivalent. According to them, the cases of the applicants as well as the private respondents were placed before the DPC and examined in accordance with their respective seniority positions.

30. It is the specific stand of the respondents that the private respondents were granted regularization because they had longer qualifying service and the relevant vacancies were available to them in accordance with their seniority positions. On the other hand, the applicants had already retired before the vacancies relevant to their regularization became available. Therefore, according to the respondents, the applicants could not be granted regularization with retrospective effect merely because they had earlier worked as Incharge Principals.

31. The respondents maintain that the applicants were not ignored during the regularization exercise. Their cases were examined along with those of other eligible officers, but they could not be granted the benefit because they did not satisfy the relevant conditions concerning

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 16 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

the availability of vacancies during their service. The respondents, therefore, submit that the claim of the applicants for retrospective promotion or regularization as Principals is not sustainable under the applicable rules. They have accordingly prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

32. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.

33. The dispute in the present case concerns the claim of nine retired employees of the School Education Department for regular promotion to the post of Principal with retrospective effect. The applicants had served the department for several years and were placed as Incharge Principals on different dates. Their grievance is that although they discharged the duties of the higher post, their services were not regularized before their retirement, whereas other officers were subsequently granted regularization with retrospective effect.

34. The main question that arises for our consideration is whether the applicants can be denied regular promotion merely because they retired before the department completed the regularization exercise, particularly when they claim that vacancies were available during

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 17 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

their service and that the delay in holding DPC meetings was attributable to the department.

35. At the outset, we may observe that promotion in government service is governed by the applicable recruitment rules, seniority, eligibility and availability of vacancies. An employee does not acquire an automatic right to regular promotion merely because he has been placed in charge of a higher post. At the same time, every eligible employee has a right to fair consideration for promotion in accordance with the rules.

36. In the present case, it is not disputed that the applicants were placed as Incharge Principals through different Government Orders. It is also not disputed that they have since retired from service without being granted regular promotion as Principals. The respondents have stated that the cases of the applicants were examined in the DPC meeting held on 22.04.2021, but they could not be regularized because the vacancies relevant to their seniority positions became available after their retirement.

37. We have considered this explanation. The respondents may be justified in denying regular promotion where no vacancy was

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 18 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

available during the service of an employee or where the employee did not fulfill the prescribed conditions. However, the mere fact that an employee has retired cannot be treated as a complete answer to his claim if he was otherwise entitled to promotion against a vacancy that had arisen during his service.

38. The applicants have specifically alleged that vacancies were available much earlier and that the department failed to hold DPC meetings regularly. They have also referred to various Government Orders through which other officers were granted retrospective regularization from the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and subsequent periods.

39. These circumstances make it necessary to examine whether the applicants were denied promotion because of their ineligibility or non- availability of vacancies, or merely because the department did not complete the regularization process in time.

40. We are conscious that administrative delays may occur for different reasons. However, an employee who has rendered long years of service should not be deprived of a benefit lawfully due to him merely because the department failed to complete the necessary formalities before his retirement. Retirement brings an end to active service, but it

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 19 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

does not necessarily extinguish a claim to a service benefit that had already accrued in accordance with the rules.

41. In this connection, Government Order No. 743-GAD of 2007 dated 28.06.2007 assumes importance. The applicants have relied upon the said Government Order, which provides that promotion may take effect from the date on which an employee is formally placed in charge of the higher post, subject to eligibility under the recruitment rules and availability of vacancy. It further provides that clearance or regularization shall take effect from the date of placement against the higher post, availability of vacancy or date of eligibility, whichever is later.

42. The said Government Order makes it clear that the date of regularization cannot be determined merely by looking at the date on which the formal promotion order was issued. The relevant date must be determined after examining the employee’s eligibility, placement against the higher post and availability of vacancy.

43. Therefore, while the applicants cannot claim regular promotion automatically from the dates on which they were placed as Incharge Principals, their cases are required to be examined with reference to

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 20 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

the conditions prescribed under the aforesaid Government Order and the applicable recruitment rules.

44. We also find that the applicants have raised a specific grievance regarding the retrospective regularization granted to certain private respondents. According to them, some private respondents did not join the higher posts when initially placed as Incharge Principals and their placement orders were subsequently withdrawn. Nevertheless, they were later granted retrospective regularization.

45. The respondents have explained that the private respondents were granted regularization on the basis of their seniority, length of qualifying service and availability of vacancies. The record also indicates that several private respondents occupied higher positions in the seniority list than the applicants.

46. In our considered view, the mere withdrawal of an earlier Incharge Principal placement order on account of non-joining does not, by itself, establish that the concerned employee automatically became junior to every officer subsequently placed as Incharge Principal. Such a question must be determined in accordance with the applicable seniority and service rules.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 21 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

47. We are, therefore, not inclined to disturb the promotions or regularization already granted to private respondent Nos. 3 to 12 merely on the basis of the allegations made by the applicants. Their service positions cannot be unsettled without a clear finding of illegality.

48. However, the fact that the private respondents may have been entitled to regularization does not mean that the claims of the applicants can be rejected without proper examination. The department is required to assess the entitlement of each applicant independently, keeping in view his seniority, eligibility, date of placement and the relevant vacancy position.

49. Another important aspect of the matter is that the applicants were placed as Incharge Principals on different dates and belonged to different feeder categories. Some were placed as Incharge Principals as early as 2005, whereas others were placed in 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2017. Their dates of retirement are also different.

50. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to grant all the applicants regular promotion from one common date. Their claims must be

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 22 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

examined individually in accordance with the rules applicable to their respective cases.

51. We have also noticed that applicant No. 1 was informed through communication dated 01.09.2021 that the vacancy relevant to his regularization arose on 01.04.2018, whereas he had retired on 30.04.2017. The respondents have relied upon this circumstance to deny him regularization.

52. However, the applicants have disputed the vacancy position and have specifically claimed that earlier vacancies were available. In these circumstances, it is necessary that the department verify the relevant vacancy records and determine whether applicant No. 1, or any of the other applicants, was entitled to promotion against a vacancy that existed during his service.

53. The mere issuance of a communication stating that a vacancy arose after retirement would not be sufficient if the applicant has raised a specific dispute regarding the vacancy position. Such a dispute must be resolved on the basis of the official records, seniority position and applicable rules.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 23 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

54. We also find that the respondents have stated that the cases of the applicants were examined in the DPC meeting held on 22.04.2021. However, the material reproduced in the pleadings does not clearly explain, applicant-wise, the particular vacancy position and the precise reasons for denying regularization to each applicant.

55. A general statement that the applicants had retired before the accrual of vacancies may not be sufficient where the applicants have specifically questioned the vacancy position and relied upon retrospective regularization granted to other officers. The department must be able to show how the relevant vacancies were determined and how the seniority and eligibility of each applicant were examined.

56. At the same time, we cannot overlook the fact that promotion is not a matter of sympathy alone. The applicants have undoubtedly rendered long service, and their grievance deserves careful examination. However, the Tribunal cannot direct regular promotion contrary to the recruitment rules or without establishing the availability of vacancies and the applicants’ entitlement.

57. The appropriate course, therefore, would be to direct a proper examination of the claims of the applicants on the basis of the existing

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 24 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

service records and the rules governing promotion to the post of Principal.

58. We are also mindful that all the applicants have retired and that the matter relates to service rendered several years ago. It would serve no useful purpose to require them to undergo repeated rounds of representations and litigation. The department should undertake a complete examination of their claims and bring the matter to a final conclusion within a fixed period.

59. In our view, if any applicant is found to have fulfilled the prescribed eligibility conditions and was entitled, according to his seniority, to promotion against an available vacancy during his service, the benefit of such promotion should not be denied merely because the DPC or the department completed the exercise after his retirement.

60. In such a situation, the applicant would be entitled to notional regular promotion from the date lawfully determined under the applicable rules, together with consequential refixation of retirement and pensionary benefits, subject to the rules governing such benefits.

61. On the other hand, if no vacancy was available during the service of a particular applicant, or if he was otherwise not eligible or did not fall

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 25 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

within the relevant zone of consideration, no direction for retrospective promotion can be issued merely because he had worked as Incharge Principal.

62. We also clarify that the existing promotions and regularization of the private respondents shall not be disturbed in the exercise directed by this Tribunal. The applicants’ claims shall be examined independently, without unnecessarily affecting the settled service positions of other employees.

63. Thus, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the applicants have made out a case for limited interference. Their claims deserve a proper and individual examination, but the material presently available does not justify a blanket direction granting regular promotion to all nine applicants from the dates claimed by them.

64. Accordingly, the Original Application deserves to be disposed of with appropriate directions to the official respondents.

65. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 26 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

a) The official respondents shall undertake a fresh and comprehensive examination of the cases of all nine applicants for regular promotion/regularization as Principals in the School Education Department. b) While undertaking the said exercise, the respondents shall examine the respective seniority positions, prescribed eligibility conditions, dates of placement as Incharge Principals, dates of retirement and availability of vacancies during the service of each applicant. c) The respondents shall also examine the relevant records of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 22.04.2021 and the principles applied while granting retrospective regularization to other similarly situated officers. d) The claims of the applicants shall be examined in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and Government Order No. 743-GAD of 2007 dated 28.06.2007. Wherever necessary, the matter shall be placed before the competent Departmental Promotion Committee or other competent authority for determination of the applicants’ entitlement.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 27 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

e) If any applicant is found entitled to regular promotion against a vacancy available during his service, the respondents shall grant him notional regular promotion from the date lawfully due, notwithstanding his subsequent retirement. Such promotion shall carry consequential refixation of pay for pensionary purposes and revision of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits, as admissible under the applicable rules. f) Any claim for actual arrears of salary or other monetary benefits shall be determined separately in accordance with the applicable rules and principles governing retrospective promotion and monetary relief. No automatic entitlement to full arrears shall arise merely from the grant of notional promotion. g) The promotions and regularization already granted to private respondent Nos. 3 to 12 shall not be disturbed on account of the present order. h) The respondents shall complete the entire exercise and issue a reasoned, applicant-wise order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Any

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 28 :: O.A. No. 1791/2021

consequential benefits found admissible shall be released within a further period of two months.

66. Before parting with the matter, we observe that the applicants have devoted a substantial part of their working lives to the School Education Department. Their claims relate to service rendered many years ago, and they have already retired. It is expected that the department will examine their cases fairly and with due care, so that any benefit lawfully due to them is not denied merely because of administrative delay.

67. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

Judicial Member

/harshit /

HARSHIT YADAV