SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal filed by Syeda Afshana Bhat, upholding the seniority and Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) benefits granted to a fellow faculty member at the University of Kashmir and ruling that the challenge was devoid of merit as well as barred by an unexplained delay of more than a decade.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani affirmed the September 28, 2022 judgment of the Single Judge, which had dismissed the writ petition challenging the placement of respondent No. 6 in the Senior Scale of Assistant Professors from May 17, 2007, one year ahead of the appellant’s placement under the University Grants Commission’s Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).
The appellant was represented by advocate Salih Pirzada. The University of Kashmir and other respondents were represented by advocates Asif Maqbool and SM Ayoub.
The dispute arose from appointments made in 2002 to the Media Education and Research Centre (MERC). While Afshana Bhat was appointed against the lone advertised post of Lecturer, respondent No. 6 was appointed on a regular temporary basis and was later selected against a migrant vacancy in 2007. The University subsequently counted her temporary service under the UGC’s Career Advancement Scheme, placing her in the Senior Scale with effect from May 17, 2007, while the appellant received the same benefit from May 17, 2008.
The appellant argued that the respondent’s initial appointment in 2002 was illegal because it was made against a non-advertised post, rendering her ineligible to count that service for CAS benefits. She also contended that CAS benefits could not be granted from a date prior to the respondent’s substantive appointment in December 2007.
Rejecting these arguments, the Division Bench held that the respondent’s initial engagement was not an illegal appointment but a temporary, stop-gap arrangement made after she had participated in the same selection process. The court observed that her services were confirmed only after her substantive appointment in 2007 and that only her temporary service had been counted for CAS in accordance with the UGC Regulations.
The Bench further held that the relevant provisions of Regulation 10.1 of the UGC Regulations were fully satisfied and that the University had correctly granted the respondent the benefit of her previous temporary service. It also clarified that CAS involves counting past service for promotion in terms of higher pay scales and is distinct from determining eligibility for substantive appointment to a post.
The judges also found the appeal fatally delayed, noting that the appellant challenged the University’s 2010 order only in 2021 despite admittedly being aware of it from the beginning. By then, the respondent had already been promoted further to Associate Professor, and her seniority had crystallised.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s recent decision in T. Gnanavel v. R. Sasipriya, the Bench observed: “Fence-sitters cannot be permitted to raise a dispute relating to seniority and consequential promotion or challenge the validity of an order after the matter has concluded.” It further noted that courts exercising public law jurisdiction do not encourage stale claims, particularly in matters of seniority and promotion where third-party rights have already crystallised.
Concluding that there was neither illegality nor perversity in the Single Judge’s decision, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding: “The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.”
