Imran Khan vs HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 15 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) Quashing the notification bearing no. DFW/JK/Est/S.L/22/2757-2805 dated 30.11.2022 by virtue of which the final seniority list of the non-gazetted category of staff Borne / working on the establishment 2211- Family Welfare MCH & Immunization Jammu / Kashmir Division has been issued by the respondent no. 2 to the extent it pertains to Jr. Health Inspectors of Jammu Division has been issued in which the name of the applicant has been figured at Sr No. 17 i.e. below the juniors of the applicant who are private respondents herein as the same is illegal, arbitrary and in a manner which is unknown to law. b) Directing the respondents to prepare fresh seniority of the Jr. Health Inspector district wise, as the applicant and private

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

respondents were selected and are working under District Cadre posts. c) With further directions to the respondents not to call DPC of Jr. Health Inspector on the basis of impugned seniority list. d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the applicant and against the non-applicants / respondents.

2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the final seniority list issued vide Notification No. DFW/JK/Est/S.L/22/2757- 2805 dated 30.11.2022, insofar as it relates to Junior Health Inspectors (Computers) of Jammu Division. The applicant is aggrieved by his placement at Serial No. 17 in the said seniority list. His main grievance is that although he was appointed against a District Cadre post, the respondents have prepared a common seniority list at the Divisional level. He has, therefore, sought quashing of the impugned

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

seniority list, preparation of a fresh district-wise seniority list and a direction restraining the respondents from holding the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of the impugned list.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board issued Advertisement Notification No. 04 of 2013 dated 23.02.2013, inviting applications for various posts, including Junior Health Inspector (Computers), in the Health and Medical Education Department. The vacancies were advertised under different item numbers for different districts. The applicant, along with the private respondents, participated in the selection process and was selected vide Selection List No. SSB/Secy/Sel/2017/1531-37 dated 31.01.2017. Thereafter, the applicant joined service on 30.03.2017 and is presently working at RFWC, Banihal, District Ramban.

4. The applicant submits that a tentative seniority list was issued on 06.01.2021, wherein his name figured at Serial No. 7. Subsequently, a final seniority list was issued on 25.02.2021, wherein he was placed at Serial No. 18. According to the applicant, the respondents prepared the seniority list by combining Junior Health Inspectors belonging to

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

different districts, even though their initial selection and appointment had been made against District Cadre posts.

5. The applicant further submits that he approached the concerned authorities on several occasions, requesting them to prepare the seniority list district-wise. He has also referred to the seniority lists prepared in respect of other District Cadre posts, including Senior Theatre Technicians, and the communication dated 25.10.2022 issued by the Deputy Director, Health Services, Kashmir, regarding preparation of district-wise seniority lists. However, his grievance was not redressed.

6. Thereafter, the respondents issued the impugned final seniority list dated 30.11.2022, wherein the applicant was placed at Serial No. 17. The applicant contends that the preparation of a common Divisional seniority list has adversely affected his seniority and future promotional prospects. He further alleges that his objections were not properly addressed and that he was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard before the seniority list was finalised. Being aggrieved, he has approached this Tribunal.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

7. The official respondents have filed their reply opposing the Original Application. They have submitted that the applicant was selected as Junior Health Inspector (Computers) vide Selection List dated 31.01.2017 and was appointed vide Order No. 335 of 2017 dated 30.03.2017. They have admitted that the initial selection was made against a District Cadre vacancy. However, they have explained that under SRO 20 of 1992, the promotional avenue available to Junior Health Inspectors was to a post belonging to the Divisional Cadre. Therefore, the Directorate was maintaining a common seniority list of Junior Health Inspectors at the Divisional level.

8. The respondents have further submitted that the Government notified the Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules vide S.O. 334 dated 13.07.2022, under which the posts of Junior Health Inspector in all disciplines were classified as Divisional Cadre posts instead of District Cadre posts. According to the respondents, the final seniority list dated 30.11.2022 was prepared in accordance with the applicable service rules and the cadre structure prescribed thereunder.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

9. The respondents have also submitted that the seniority of the selected candidates was determined on the basis of the merit secured by them in the selection process conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board. The applicant secured 51.4667 points, whereas the private respondents placed above him secured higher marks. The respondents have, therefore, maintained that the applicant was placed in the seniority list according to his selection merit and that no injustice or discrimination has been caused to him.

10. The respondents have also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, SLP(C) No. 11039 of 2022, in support of their stand regarding determination of seniority on the basis of selection merit. They have submitted that the applicant has failed to establish any violation of the applicable service rules and have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

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

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

12. The principal question which arises for consideration before this Tribunal is whether the respondents were justified in preparing a common Divisional seniority list of Junior Health Inspectors (Computers), although the applicant was initially selected and appointed against a District Cadre post.

13. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the applicant was selected pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 04 of 2013 dated 23.02.2013 and was appointed in the year 2017 against a District Cadre vacancy. The respondents have also admitted this position in their reply. The grievance of the applicant is that his seniority should continue to be maintained district-wise merely because his initial appointment was made against a District Cadre post.

14. We have considered this submission. It is important to understand that the cadre against which an employee is initially appointed and the cadre structure governing his subsequent service and promotional opportunities are matters regulated by the applicable service rules. An employee cannot claim that the cadre structure existing at the time of his initial appointment must necessarily remain unchanged throughout

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

his service. The Government, being the competent authority, can reorganise cadres and prescribe the manner in which seniority is to be maintained, subject to the applicable law and protection of legally accrued rights.

15. In the present case, the respondents have specifically stated that under SRO 20 of 1992, the next higher promotional post available to Junior Health Inspectors belonged to the Divisional Cadre. It was for this reason that the Directorate maintained a common seniority list at the Divisional level. More importantly, the Government subsequently notified the Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules vide S.O. 334 dated 13.07.2022, under which the posts of Junior Health Inspector in all disciplines were classified as Divisional Cadre posts.

16. The impugned seniority list was issued on 30.11.2022, after the notification of S.O. 334 dated 13.07.2022. Thus, on the date of issuance of the impugned seniority list, the respondents were acting on the basis of the cadre structure prescribed under the subsequently notified recruitment rules. The applicant has not placed before this Tribunal any specific provision of the applicable rules which would

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

require the respondents to continue maintaining a separate district- wise seniority list despite the classification of the posts as Divisional Cadre posts.

17. We are of the view that the mere fact that the applicant was initially selected against a District Cadre vacancy does not, by itself, establish that the preparation of a Divisional seniority list in the year 2022 was illegal. Once the competent authority has prescribed a Divisional Cadre structure under the applicable recruitment rules, the seniority of employees belonging to that cadre has to be examined in the light of those rules. The applicant has neither challenged the validity of S.O. 334 dated 13.07.2022 nor established that the impugned seniority list was prepared in violation of any particular provision thereof.

18. Another important aspect of the matter is the relative merit position of the applicant and the private respondents. The respondents have furnished the marks obtained by the candidates during the selection process. The applicant secured 51.4667 points, whereas the private respondents placed above him secured higher marks. The applicant has not demonstrated that any candidate who secured lower marks

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

than him has been placed above him in the impugned seniority list, or that his position has been determined contrary to any applicable rule governing inter se seniority.

19. It is true that the applicant and the private respondents were initially selected against vacancies advertised for different districts. However, the mere fact of their selection from different districts does not automatically make the subsequent preparation of a common seniority list illegal, particularly when the respondents have relied upon the notified Divisional Cadre structure. The applicant was required to establish how the method adopted by the respondents violated the applicable service rules or deprived him of a legally protected seniority position. No sufficient material has been brought on record to establish such a violation.

20. The respondents have also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoj Parihar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, SLP(C) No. 11039 of 2022, regarding the relevance of selection merit in determining seniority. The principle relied upon by the respondents is that seniority must be determined in accordance with the applicable

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

rules and the legally recognised basis of selection, rather than on an arbitrary basis. However, the determination of seniority in the present case must ultimately be governed by the recruitment and seniority rules applicable to the cadre concerned. On the material placed before us, the applicant has failed to establish that the respondents adopted a method prohibited by those rules.

21. The applicant has also relied upon the seniority lists prepared in respect of other District Cadre posts, particularly Senior Theatre Technicians, and the communication issued by the Deputy Director, Health Services, Kashmir, on 25.10.2022. However, these documents do not establish that the respondents were legally required to maintain a separate district-wise seniority list for Junior Health Inspectors even after the notification of S.O. 334 dated 13.07.2022. The seniority of each category of employees has to be determined in accordance with the rules applicable to that category. Merely because a different procedure has been followed for another category of employees does not confer an enforceable right upon the applicant to demand the same

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

procedure without establishing that both categories are governed by identical provisions.

22. We have also examined the allegation of the applicant that he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before the seniority list was finalised. The record shows that tentative seniority lists had been issued earlier and that the applicant had approached the concerned authorities regarding his grievance. The respondents have stated that his claim was examined but was not found acceptable. The applicant has not established that the final seniority list was prepared in breach of any mandatory procedure prescribed under the applicable rules.

23. Even otherwise, the applicant has not demonstrated how a further opportunity of hearing would have altered his seniority position when the respondents have justified the list on the basis of the notified cadre structure and the selection merit of the candidates. In the absence of any established violation of a mandatory rule or any demonstrated prejudice arising from the alleged procedural deficiency, we do not find sufficient ground to set aside the entire seniority list.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

24. We are conscious of the fact that seniority plays an important role in the service career of an employee, particularly when it affects future promotions. Every employee has a legitimate expectation that his seniority will be determined fairly and in accordance with the applicable rules. At the same time, seniority cannot be altered merely because an employee feels that a different method would place him in a more favourable position. Any interference with a seniority list must be supported by a clear violation of law, the applicable rules or an established right.

25. In the present case, the respondents have explained the basis on which the impugned seniority list was prepared. The applicant has not been able to establish that the respondents acted contrary to the applicable recruitment rules or that his seniority was determined in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. His initial appointment against a District Cadre vacancy, by itself, is not sufficient to invalidate the Divisional seniority list prepared after the notification of the revised recruitment rules.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 16 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

26. It is also relevant to observe that the private respondents have been placed in the seniority list on the basis of the merit position relied upon by the department. Interference with the impugned list, without establishing any legal infirmity in the method of its preparation, would unnecessarily disturb the seniority position of other employees. The settled position of employees should not be disturbed unless a clear legal ground for doing so is made out.

27. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the applicant has failed to make out a case warranting interference with the final seniority list issued vide Notification No. DFW/JK/Est/S.L/22/2757- 2805 dated 30.11.2022. The respondents have justified the preparation of the Divisional seniority list with reference to the applicable cadre structure and the merit position of the selected candidates. No sufficient ground has been established for directing the respondents to prepare a fresh district-wise seniority list or for restraining them from proceeding with departmental promotions on the basis of the impugned list.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 17 :: O.A. No. 53/2023

28. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we find no merit in the present Original Application. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

29. The impugned seniority list dated 30.11.2022 does not call for interference by this Tribunal on the grounds raised in the present Original Application. The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed with the departmental promotion process in accordance with the applicable recruitment and seniority rules.

30. There shall be no order as to costs.

31. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

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

Judicial Member

/harshit /

HARSHIT YADAV