The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union Territory authorities, affirming that a candidate wrongly denied appointment must receive notional seniority and related service benefits. The court upheld an earlier tribunal order granting retrospective benefits to a Junior Engineer.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated through advertisements issued in 2007 and 2008 for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), Grade-II.
Raghu Singh Jandla, the respondent, had applied under the Reserved Backward Area (RBA) category. Although he secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the same category, he was initially denied selection on technical grounds related to the timing of his category certificate submission.
He approached the High Court earlier, which in 2014 directed the authorities to include him in the select list and appoint him. Following this, he was appointed in July 2014.
However, since other candidates from the same selection were appointed in August 2009, Jandla sought retrospective (notional) appointment and corresponding benefits, including seniority and pension.
The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled in his favour, directing that:
- His appointment be treated as effective from 22 August 2009 (notionally)
- His seniority be fixed based on merit in the original selection list
- He be granted promotional benefits accordingly
- He be covered under the Old Pension Scheme applicable before 2010
The Tribunal reasoned that the delay in his appointment was not due to any fault on his part.
The Union Territory authorities challenged the Tribunal’s decision, arguing that:
- The respondent had accepted his 2014 appointment without objection
- Seniority cannot be granted for a period when no actual service was rendered
- Pension benefits should be determined based on the actual date of appointment
On the other hand, the respondent maintained that he was unfairly excluded despite being meritorious and that the delay was solely due to administrative error.
The bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem examined the legal position and prior precedents.
The court noted that the respondent had participated in the same selection process and was wrongly denied appointment despite higher merit.
“The wrongful denial of appointment cannot be used to prejudice a candidate for no fault of his,” the bench observed.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the court emphasized that where a candidate is unjustly excluded, notional appointment and seniority must follow as a corrective measure.
It further held that denying such benefits would violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
On pension, the court agreed that once notional appointment is granted from an earlier date, the applicable pension scheme must also correspond to that period.
The High Court found no legal or factual error in the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the writ petition.
It upheld the grant of notional appointment from 22 August 2009, re-fixed seniority, and entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme along with consequential benefits.
Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. vs. Raghu Singh Jandla
