Neelofar Kouncer vs DEPARTMENT OF PHE on 3 November 2026

1. Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks the following reliefs:

a. Quash the promotion agenda, or the relevant portion thereof, to the extent it drops/excludes the Applicant from consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on the ground of nonqualification of the SATC Examination;

b. Direct the Respondents to consider the Applicant for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and inter-se seniority, without insisting upon qualification of the SATC Examination as a precondition.

c. Direct that, if the Applicant is otherwise eligible, the Applicant be promoted from the date his/her juniors are promoted or placed as Senior Assistants, with notional seniority and all consequential benefits;

d. Direct the respondents to convene a DPC of the applicant and place the case of the applicant before the DPC for promoting the applicant against the post of senior assistant.

e. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem, fit and proper may also be passed favouring petitioner and against the respondents, albeit not prayed for.

2. Alongside the main reliefs, the applicant also seeks the interim relief:

a. Pending disposal of the original application by this Hon'ble Tribunal, the respondents be directed to promote the petitioner to the next higher post of Senior Assistant with effect from the date the post was available for the petitioner to be promoted.

3. What emerges from the pleadings made is that the applicant is working and discharging her duties as Junior Assistant in the respondent department. As stated, the respondents have circulated/issued the promotion agenda for the post of Senior Assistant and in the said agenda, the other officials junior to the applicant have been shortlisted for promotion whereas the applicant has been dropped solely on the ground that the applicant has not qualified the Secretariat Assistant Training Course (SATC) Examination.

4. The applicant, as stated, has appeared in the SATC (Departmental Examination) held in the month of June 2026. However, the result of the said examination has not been declared till date. It is stated that non- declaration of the results cannot make the applicant to suffer to seek consideration of her promotion as any delay in declaration of results cannot be attributable to the applicant.

5. Admittedly, for seeking promotion to the next higher post of Senior Assistant required qualification and norms are to be followed as are contained in the statute and there can be no deviation from complying with any of the required qualifications.

6. Mr. Faizan Majid Bhat, appearing for private respondents no. 13 & 16 submits that the applicant has failed twice in past in the SATC Examination.

7. Per contra, learned counsels for the applicant, Mr. Aquib Khan and Mr. Suhail Shahbaz submit that it may be true that the applicant has failed twice but she has every right to appear again and to seek declaration of her results.

8. The argument of learned counsel for the applicant is plausible, as once the applicant has appeared in the examination, she has every right to know the result whether she has qualified or not, and in such matters delay certainly defeats the right of consideration.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that some of the Junior Assistants, including the applicant, have moved a detailed representation before the Chief Engineer.

10. Heard.

11. Issue notice upon the respondents. Mr. Rais ud din Ganaie, learned DAG, for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Mr. Faizan Majid Bhat for private respondents no. 13 and 16, have appeared and accepted notice. Mr. Faizan shall also file his power of attorney in accordance with law. As regards other private respondents, the applicants to submit equal no. of AD covers along with equal sets of O.A. for service upon unserved private respondents. On needful being done within one week, registry of this Court shall serve the private respondents in accordance with law.

12. In the meanwhile, subject to objections of the other side and till next date of hearing, the respondents shall consider and decide the representation filed by the applicant on its merits and in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. In the meantime, it is also ordered that Mr. Rais ud din Ganaie, learned DAG, shall ascertain as to why result of the SATC Examination has not been declared. It is expected that the competent authority will decide the representation within two weeks positively and shall give ample opportunity of hearing to the applicant. To this effect, we are fortified by the judgments mentioned hereunder:

1. Nagapa Saibanna v. State of Karnataka, 2026 Legal Eagle, KAK, HC, 965

2. Eklavya Kumar v. State of U.P, 2018 Legal Eagle, ALD, HC 12425 DB

3. Dr. Suja Ani. G, v. State of Kerala, the Director of Medical Education and the Principal, 2010 Legal Eagle, Ker, HC 2562

13. It is made clear that any promotions made shall remain subject to final outcome of the O.A.

14. List on 28.12.2026. Prasant Kumar Member (A) M. S. Latif Member (J) Abhishek Punia ( court master )