STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a landmark ruling that reinforces the importance of merit and fairness in public service recruitment, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, has quashed the seniority list of Prosecuting Officers dated December 6, 2003, and directed that Rajesh Bakshi, Prosecuting Officer in the Jammu & Kashmir Police, be accorded seniority based on his performance in the selection examination for the 1998 batch.
The Tribunal, comprising Rajinder Singh Dogra (Judicial Member) and Ram Mohan Johri (Administrative Member), delivered the judgment in a case originally filed in the Jammu & Kashmir High Court and later transferred following the reorganization of the erstwhile state into a Union Territory.
The origins of this case go back to 1997, when Rajesh Bakshi applied for the post of Prosecuting Officer in the Jammu & Kashmir Police, in response to Advertisement Notice dated 1st December 1997. However, during the written examination conducted on 18th September 1998, a clerical error resulted in his name being mistakenly recorded as “Rajan Bakshi.” This error caused considerable confusion, resulting in a delay in his entry into the examination hall and adversely affecting his performance. Consequently, he failed to qualify.
Determined to seek justice, Bakshi filed SWP No. 522/1999 in the J&K High Court, seeking a direction to the authorities to allow him to retake the exam. Acknowledging the administrative error, the court directed the official respondents to conduct a separate written test and viva voce for him. The court also stated that if Bakshi qualified, he should be appointed as part of the 1998 batch and assigned seniority based on his performance.
Pursuant to the court’s directive, Bakshi appeared for the test again and scored a total of 76 marks out of 100 – 69 in the written examination and 7 in the viva voce. He was appointed as a Prosecuting Officer vide order dated 25th November 2000, which explicitly stated that he was appointed against the 1998 batch and that his seniority would be fixed as per merit.
Despite this, when the final seniority list of Prosecuting Officers was issued on 6th December 2003, Bakshi’s name was placed at Serial No. 34, below numerous other officers who had secured lower marks than him in the original 1998 examination. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court again, filing SWP No. 1749/2011, which after the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019, was transferred to the CAT Jammu Bench and renumbered as TA 6398/2021.
Represented by senior Advocate Abhinav Sharma and Advocate Abhimanyu Sharma, the applicant argued that his seniority should have been determined based on Rule 24 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which provides for seniority to be based on merit obtained in the competitive examination.
They further submitted that as per an RTI reply, Bakshi had secured the highest marks among all candidates appointed against the 1998 batch.
The applicant also highlighted that he had excelled in the Basic Induction Training Course held at the Sher-i-Kashmir Police Academy, Udhampur, securing 579 out of 1000 marks, further demonstrating his capability and commitment.
The respondents, represented by Hunar Gupta, Deputy Advocate General (DAG), argued that the examination Bakshi appeared for in 2000 was different from the original 1998 examination.
They claimed that Bakshi could not be considered part of the original batch since he did not qualify in the original selection process. According to them, his place in the seniority list was correctly determined based on the timing of his actual appointment in 2000.
They also contested Bakshi’s claim of being significantly delayed during the 1998 examination, stating that the identity verification process was completed before the start of the test, and he had sufficient time to complete it. His failure to qualify, they argued, was due to his lack of preparation rather than administrative error.
After carefully considering the arguments of both sides and reviewing the documentary evidence, the CAT held that the respondents had violated the directions of the High Court and the rules governing seniority by placing Bakshi below lesser-scoring candidates.
The Tribunal emphasized that the order of appointment dated November 25, 2000 clearly mentioned that Bakshi was selected for the 1998 batch, and therefore, there was no justification for treating him as a 2000 appointee. It also found no basis for the respondents’ claim that the examinations of 1998 and 2000 were fundamentally different, especially since Bakshi’s re-examination was conducted solely due to the error in his admit card during the original process.
In its judgment, the Tribunal stated, “The applicant is required to be treated as a selectee of the 1998 batch and deemed to have been appointed on December 24, 1998. Consequently, the applicant is entitled to seniority among the Prosecuting Officers of 1998 batch on the basis of his merit in the selection process.”
Accordingly, the Tribunal, quashed the final seniority list dated December 6, 2003 and directed the respondents to re-fix Bakshi’s seniority in the 1998 batch based on the 76 marks he secured in the selection process.
The Tribunal also ordered that he be deemed appointed on December 24,.1998, the same date as the other candidates of the 1998 batch and instructed the authorities to release all consequential benefits, including promotion and arrears, as applicable besides set a deadline of three months for compliance from the date of receipt of the order.