Migrant Status Cannot Delay CAS Career Progression Once Eligibility is Met: J&K And Ladakh HC Dismisses SKUAST Appeal, Upholds Retrospective Promotions For Migrant Teachers
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed an appeal filed by Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Kashmir, and upheld directions requiring Career Advancement Scheme promotions for migrant teachers to operate from their respective due dates of eligibility. The dispute arose after university teachers who migrated from the Valley during militancy were granted CAS promotions, but the university made the promotions effective only from their rejoining at the Kashmir campus in 2009 under a screening condition. Affirming the writ court’s direction to remove that condition and apply promotions from completion of the requisite service, the Bench held that once statutory eligibility is accepted, migrant status cannot be used to defer career progression, and identically placed employees must receive equal promotional benefit.
Teachers employed with SKUAST, Kashmir migrated to the SKUAST campus in Jammu due to militancy. A Government order treated such employees as migrant employees and provided migrant salary, and a later Government order directed that migrant employees be considered for promotion, with the effect to be given only upon their joining the promoted post.
SKUAST amended the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for Teachers prospectively but later fixed its effective date retrospectively as 27.07.1998. The teachers asserted they had completed the requisite service as Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist and sought promotion under CAS to Associate Professor/Senior Scientist, stating benefits had been given to similarly situated and junior colleagues.
In 2009, they were asked to rejoin in the Valley for their promotion cases to be considered; the Selection Committee and the Board of Management approved the promotions, but a Screening Committee recommended that the promotions would take effect only from the date of joining in 2009, and promotion orders were issued accordingly. They objected, citing Dr. Wali Ullah’s case; the matter was referred to the Agriculture Production Department, which advised placing the issue before the governing body and keeping State procedure in view. The university opposed the writ petition on eligibility/training-course grounds and relied on the Screening Committee’s approach.
The Bench recorded that “It is an admitted position that the Selection Committee found the respondents to have fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion, and it is also not disputed that the Board of Management also duly approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee.” It further recorded that “Even in the record of the Screening Committee, it is nowhere mentioned that the respondents were not in active service.”
On what the Screening Committee actually noted, the Court stated: “In all the cases of the respondents, the Screening Committee has only opined that the respondents lacked two training courses of approved duration, which the respondents can complete in next six months and in some cases, even this requirement was recommended for relaxation…” It added: “The cases of the respondents were never rejected by the Screening Committee for the reason that they were not in ‘active service’…” and concluded on that contention: “None of the respondents have been found unsuitable by the appellants on the ground of lack of active service. This contention of the appellants is misconceived and deserves to be rejected.”
On the attempt to distinguish Dr. Wali Ullah, the Court noted that “A perusal of the order dated 16.09.2004 reveals that Dr. Wali Ullah migrated… [and] failed to join at Leh and instead continued to enjoy migrant status.” It recorded that “only in the year 2004” he requested resumption of duties and “was subsequently allowed to resume his duties” at Shalimar Campus. The Court then stated: “Thus, it is clear that Dr. Wali Ullah was granted promotion… with effect from 27.07.1998, despite the fact that he did not join Leh… and continued to enjoy migrant status.” On that basis, it held: “Given these facts, the appellants have miserably failed to draw any distinction between the case of Dr. Wali Ullah and that of the respondents.”
The Bench applied the parity principle: “It is settled law that similarly situated persons cannot be treated differently.” and recorded: “once the respondents and Dr. Wali Ullah are found to be identically placed… the appellants are required to extend the same promotional benefits to the respondents…”
The Division Bench recorded that the writ court, by judgment dated 24.03.2022, “allowed the writ petition … and quashed the condition imposed by the Screening Committee … whereby the effect of promotion was accorded from the date of active joining” and further that “the appellants were directed to give effect to the orders of promotion of the respondents under Career Advancement Scheme as Associate Professors/Senior Scientists from the date, they completed the requisite number of years of service as ‘Assistant Professors/Junior Scientists’.”
“We do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity therein. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, the impugned judgment shall stand upheld in its entirety.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. D. C. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate; Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, Advocate; Mr. Junaid, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J. A. Hamal, Advocate and Mr. Ankit Dogra, Advocate.
Case Title: Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agriculture Sciences and Technology and another v. Dr. Robinder Nath Koul and others
Case Number: LPA No. 98/2022
Bench:Justice Arun Palli, Justice Rajnesh Oswal
