[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On 29.01.2026 vs High Court Of J&K And Others on 5 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:181-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SWP No.888/2002
Reserved on 29.01.2026.
Pronounced on 05.02.2026
Uploaded on 06. 02.2026
Abdul Salam Dar ..... Petitioner (s)
Through :- Mr. P.N.Goja Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhinav Jamwal Advocate
V/s
High Court of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr Aditya Gupta Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Kumar J
Background and Reliefs Sought:
1 The petitioner has retired on superannuation as Reader of this
Court. While he was in service, he filed the instant petition in the year 2002
seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:
(i) a direction to respondent No.1 to treat him as having been
appointed against the post of Assistant Registrar retrospectively
from 09.09.1997 and to re-designate him as Assistant Registrar
instead of Reader;
(ii) a direction to respondent No.1 to grant the petitioner
promotion in the grade of Rs.8000-12950 (Grade-I) from the date
respondents No.2 and 3 were placed in the said grade;
(iii) a direction to respondent No.1 not to regularize the ad hoc
promotions of respondents No.2 and 3 in the grade of Rs.8000-
2026:JKLHC-JMU:181-DB
12950 (Grade-I) without allowing such grade to the petitioner
w.e.f. 27.04.2001 along with the consequential seniority, placing
him above respondent No.3.
Factual Matrix:
2 The petitioner, a graduate from the University of Kashmir, was
working as Section Officer in the Administrative Wing of this Court along with
respondents No.2 and 3, who were not possessing the qualification of
graduation. Vide Order No.349 dated 23.08.1997, respondent No.2 was
promoted as Assistant Registrar-II in the grade of Rs.7500-12000 (Grade-II)
(old 2125-3600), though he did not possess the qualification of graduation.
This promotion of respondent No.2 as Assistant Registrar-II was made by
respondent No.1 in relaxation of his qualification. The petitioner, who was also
a Section Officer working alongside respondent No.2, was subsequently
promoted as Reader in the grade of Rs.2125-3600 (old) revised to Rs.7500-
12000, vide order dated 09.09.1997. Respondent No.3 was, in the year 1998,
also promoted as Assistant Registrar (Grade-II) by respondent No.1 vide Order
No.218 dated 03.07.1998.Though the petitioner accepted and joined as Reader,
his appointment came to be challenged by Yash Pal Sharma, Onkar Raina, and
Joginder Singh by way of SWP No.140/1998 on the ground that the petitioner
did not possess the qualification of LLB required for holding the post. The said
writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide
judgment dated 20.08.2001, holding that the post of Reader carries a degree in
the discipline of law as the minimum qualification and directing respondent
No.1 to take note of the observations and take necessary remedial measures.
This judgment was assailed by the High Court before a Division Bench of this
Court in LPA (SW) No.389/2001 titled 'High Court of J&K v. Yash Pal
Sharma and others', which was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.02.2002.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:181-DB
Rival contentions:
3 It seems, and as is claimed by the petitioner, no remedial measures
were taken and the petitioner was allowed to continue as Reader till he
superannuated. After the decision of the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner filed a
representation dated 20.03.2002 before respondent No.1 seeking his re-
designation as Assistant Registrar-II from the date he was erroneously
promoted as Reader and for further promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar
on the analogy of respondents No.2 and 3. When this did not happen, the
petitioner filed the instant petition.
4 In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it was not
disputed that the petitioner was promoted as Section Officer on ad hoc basis
along with respondents No.2 and 3 vide Order No.491 dated 29.09.1994 and
was placed at Serial No.1 of the said order. With regard to promotion of
respondent No.3 in relaxation of qualification, it was contended that under
Rule 6 of the J&K High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968,
Hon'ble the Chief Justice was empowered to lay down and relax qualifications
for any post. It was submitted that the representations made by the petitioner
were considered and rejected and such rejection was conveyed to him vide
letters dated 06.03.1998 and 01.01.2001. Another representation was also
considered and rejected by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated
08.03.2005.
5 The writ petition was resisted primarily on the ground that the
petitioner never objected to rather derived the benefit of the post of Reader, a
post equivalent to Assistant Registrar-II, when it was offered to him
immediately after the temporary promotion of respondent No.2 as Assistant
2026:JKLHC-JMU:181-DB
Registrar-II. It was thus submitted that it was not left to the sweet will of the
petitioner to switch over from one cadre to another having regard to the
promotional prospects in a particular cadre available at a particular point of
time. Regarding further promotion of respondents No.2 and 3 to the post of
Assistant Registrar Grade-I, it was contended that the said benefit was
conferred upon respondents No.2 and 3 in compliance with judicial decisions .
6 Respondents No.2 and 3 also filed their replies reiterating the
stand taken by respondent No.1 in its reply affidavit.
Analysis and Findings
7 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record, it is seen that the petitioner was promoted as Section
Officer along with Jawahar Lal Khar, Naseeb Singh (respondent No.2), and
Rattan Singh (respondent No.3) initially on an ad hoc basis. In the order of
ad hoc promotion as Section Officer, the petitioner, possessing the qualification
of graduation, was shown at Serial No.1 despite the fact that Jawahar Lal Khar
and respondents No.2 and 3 herein were senior to him in the cadre of Head
Assistants. It appears that the petitioner was placed above the aforesaid three
on the ground that he possessed the requisite qualification of graduation,
whereas the promotions in the case of Jawahar Lal Khar, respondents No.2 and
3 herein were on account of relaxation of educational qualification. This is
apparent from the order of ad hoc promotion dated 09.09.1994 issued by
respondent No.1.However, when the ad hoc promotions of Section Officers
were regularised, the petitioner was placed below all the three aforesaid
persons on the ground that they were senior to the petitioner in the cadre of
Head Assistants and that placement in seniority could not be based on
2026:JKLHC-JMU:181-DB
qualification. The issue was examined by the then Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K.
Gupta, and it was opined that the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 and 3
could not be treated differently, particularly, once the educational qualification
in their favour had been legitimately and legally relaxed by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice. Accordingly, the recommendations of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta
were accepted by Lord the Chief Justice, and the seniority position was
corrected. The petitioner was placed at Serial No.4 of the seniority list of
Section Officers after respondent No.3.
8 It is apparent from the record produced before us that the
petitioner resented his placement at Serial No.4 of the seniority list of Section
Officers by making representation after representation, but all his
representations were rejected by the competent authority. In the year 1997, the
post of Assistant Registrar-II, i.e., in the then grade of Rs.2125-3600, fell
vacant due to the promotion of Shri Romesh Chander Khajuria as Assistant
Registrar Grade-I. Respondent No.2, being the senior-most Section Officer
available at that time, was considered and temporarily promoted as Assistant
Registrar Grade-II by respondent No.1 in relaxation of his educational
qualification. It needs no reiteration that respondent No.3 was promoted as
'Section Officer' in relaxation of educational qualification, as he was an
undergraduate and did not possess the qualification of graduation prescribed
for the post of Section Officer/Assistant Registrar-II.
9 Be that as it may, the petitioner did not challenge the promotion of
respondent No.2 as Assistant Registrar-II, though he made a representation
seeking his own promotion as Assistant Registrar-II on the ground that he was
a graduate and possessed the required qualification. His grievance was
2026:JKLHC-JMU:181-DB
primarily based on his seniority position indicated in the order of ad hoc
promotions as Section Officer, which stood rectified by respondent No.1 while
confirming the promotions and finalising the seniority of Section Officers.
10 It appears that upon a few posts of Reader falling vacant, a process
was initiated to appoint Readers by way of promotion from different cadres.
Accordingly, the petitioner, who was a Section Officer and possessed the
qualification of graduation, was considered and promoted against one of the
posts of Reader carrying the pay grade of Rs.2125-3600 (old), a grade
equivalent to that prescribed for the post of Assistant Registrar-II. It was done
in supersession of better claim of respondent No.3, who was admittedly senior
to the petitioner in the cadre of Section Officers. He accepted the appointment
by submitting his joining without any protest or demur. Respondent No.3, who
despite being senior to the petitioner, was left out and continued to work in the
pay scale of Section Officer. His grievance came to be considered by the High
Court, and vide Order No.218 dated 03.07.1998, when he too was promoted as
Assistant Registrar-II in the grade of Rs.2125-3600 (old).This is how all the
three, i.e., the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 herein, came to be placed
in the then pay scale of Rs.2125-3600, the petitioner as Reader, whereas
respondents No.2 and 3 as Assistant Registrars-II.
11 It is true that some in-service candidates possessing the
qualification of LLB resented the adjustment of various officials as Readers
without possessing the qualification of LLB and litigated the matter in this
Court. Although the Division Bench of this Court ruled in favour of the
aforesaid employees, it stopped short of quashing their appointments. There
was only a direction to respondent No.1 to take remedial measures and ensure
2026:JKLHC-JMU:181-DB
that the Rules are complied with. Essentially, what was directed by the
Division Bench in the aforesaid litigation was to take remedial measures and to
adhere to the Rules in future. This is how the appointment of the petitioner as
Reader by way of promotion from the post of Section Officer remained intact.It
was only when the avenues of promotion opened for the Ministerial cadre due
to the creation of new posts and consequent promotions of respondents No.2
and 3 as Assistant Registrar-II, the petitioner felt aggrieved. He felt aggrieved
because in the cadre of Reader he did not see many avenues of promotion to
the higher post. The petitioner, therefore, came to be retired on 31.12.2004 as
Reader, whereas by that time respondents No.2 and 3 had succeeded in getting
one more promotion, i.e., promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar-I.
12 We have given thoughtful consideration to the grievance of the
petitioner raised in this petition. We do not find any merit in the submission of
Mr. Goja, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the
petitioner, being senior to respondents No.2 and 3, ought to have been
promoted as Assistant Registrar-II before respondent No.2. It is true that when
the promotions of the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 to the post of
Section Officers were made on an ad hoc basis, the petitioner figured at Serial
No.1, but this was notwithstanding the fact that he was junior to respondents
No.2 and 3 in the cadre of Head Assistants. This mistake was corrected by the
High Court when it later regularised the promotions and finalised the seniority
list of the Head Assistants' cadre. The petitioner was placed after respondents
No.2 and 3.
13 The plea of the petitioner that he possessed the qualification of
graduation required for the post of Section Officer, whereas respondents No.2
2026:JKLHC-JMU:181-DB
and 3 were promoted as Section Officers in relaxation of the Rules by Hon'ble
the Chief Justice, was considered and rejected by respondent No.1 on more
than one occasion. That decision had attained finality. That apart, we also do
not find any good reason to doubt the correctness of the aforesaid decision
taken by Hon'ble the then Chief Justice on the recommendations of the One-
Man Committee headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta. The qualification
in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 was legitimately relaxed and they were
treated as eligible and promoted as Section Officers along with the petitioner.
Since respondents No.2 and 3 were senior in the lower cadre of Head
Assistants, they were rightly shown senior to the petitioner.In the year 1997,
only one post of Assistant Registrar-II became available due to the promotion
of Mr. R.C. Khajuria to the post of Assistant Registrar-I. The said post was
rightly offered to respondent No.2, being the senior-most Section Officer
available.
14 True it is that the respondents No. 2 and 3 were not holding the
qualification of graduation, but since the qualification stood relaxed while
promoting them to the posts of Section Officer, it was thought just and proper
to promote them to the posts of Assistant Registrar-II in relaxation of the
educational qualification. The petitioner did not wait for the post of Assistant
Registrar-II to become available and opted to become a Reader, which was a
post equivalent to the grade of Assistant Registrar-II. He, however, resented his
appointment as Reader after some time when he realised that he might not have
good avenues of promotion in the cadre of Reader. He made frantic efforts to
change his cadre from Reader to Assistant Registrar-II, but that was not
considered by respondent No.1, and rightly so. The High Court was justified in
2026:JKLHC-JMU:181-DB
not permitting him to seek change of his cadre at his sweet will, and that too
after having accepted the appointment by way of promotion as Reader.
15 The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the petitioner did not work as Reader and performed his duties in
the Administrative Wing of the High Court does not change the position. The
petitioner, having been appointed as Reader, was entitled to further promotion
to the post of Bench Secretary, subject to eligibility and availability of the post.
This, however, did not happen during his service career, and he retired on
superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2004.
Conclusion:
16 For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition, and
the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(SANJAY PARIHAR (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Jammu
06 .02.2026
Sanjeev
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
