1996 INSC 0699
                                                   Jai Ram Sharma

                                                           Vs

                                         Jammu Development Authority

                                          Civil Appeal No. 7750 of 1996

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      19.04.1996

                                                     JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 10-2-1995 of the High
Court of Jammu and Kashmir in LPA No. 77 of 1990. The admitted position is that while
Respondent 5, P. N. Jalla, was on deputation as Senior Steno, the appellant was appointed on regular
basis as Office Superintendent. For the post of Public Relations Officer, he is required to be
considered for promotion on regular basis. Instead of promoting him on regular basis, the
deputationist was considered and promoted. The appellant challenged the said action by way of writ
petition which was not properly considered by the Division Bench. When the matter had come up
for admission, this Court on 21-8-1995 had passed the following order:

                  "Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner does not require payment of back
                  wages but his due seniority is to be considered according to rules. The third
                  respondent was only a Senior Stenographer in government service and was on
                  deputation. While the petitioner is a regular employee and is entitled to be
                  considered, when the vacancy of Public Relations Officer had arisen, he was not
                  considered. Since the Single Judge has given the direction correctly, the Division
                  Bench was not right in upsetting that order from the date on which he was due to be
                  considered. In view of the fact that he is not claiming any arrears and the fifth
                  respondent has retired from service, notice is issued to the State as to why the
                  petitioner's seniority should not be taken from the date when the vacancy of PRO had
                  arisen and he was due for consideration but was not considered along with the fifth
                  respondent."

4. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent contending that the appellant's seniority was
considered with effect from the date when the vacancy had arisen after the retirement of the fifth
respondent. The above action is obviously illegal and an arm-twist to nepotism. When the appellant
was a regular candidate as Office Superintendent, he was entitled to be considered in preference to
the deputationist, who is not a member of the service as on that date. He was wrongly denied of his
legitimate right to be considered for appointment on the date when the fifth respondent was
appointed. It is, therefore, directed that the appellant must be considered to have been regularly
appointed with effect from the date on which the fifth respondent was promoted as PRO and in
terms of the order passed by this Court. His entitlement would be considered according to the rules
within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the order.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.