ÖITEM NO.3 COURT NO.10 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A.No.3 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).14594/2013(From the judgement and order dated 13/12/2012 in LPASW No.90/2011 of TheHIGH COURT OF J & K AT JAMMU)RAJEN WARIKOO & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR Respondent(s)(With appln. for clarification of court's order and office report)Date: 07/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Harshvardhan, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv. Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Ms. Shilpa Datta, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw I.A. No.3 seeking clarification of Court's order dated 29.4.2013. Permission is granted. I.A. No.3 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. [Usha Bhardwaj] [Sneh Lata Sharma] A.R-cum-P.S. Court Master
.(ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.12 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).14594/2013(From the judgement and order dated 13/12/2012 in LPASW No.90/2011 of theHIGH COURT OF J & K AT JAMMU)RAJEN WARIKOO & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record,permissionto file additional documents and prayer for interim relief and officereport)Date: 29/04/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOIFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia,Sr.Adv. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao,Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji,Adv. Mr. Angad Kochar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma,Adv. Ms. Insha Mir,Adv. Ms. Ankita Mishra,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Fernandes, learned counsel appearing for the State of J & K. The dispute in the present matter is with respect to the promotional facility to the petitioners who were initially working as Village Extension Workers in the Agriculture Production Department. In an earlier round of proceedings, the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir had given two directions: (a) One was that the State Government shall consider relaxation of the relevant Rules of 1998 in terms of Rule 9 thereof for the purposes of accommodating the petitioners into the posts of Subject Matter Experts; (b) The second option was that if relaxation of the Rules was not possible, the persons concerned may be sent back to their parent departments on a promotion post, which by then had been acquired by their batchmates. The Government accepted option (b) and that decision led to one more round of litigation including the impugned order. The submission of the petitioners is that it did not reflect from the Government order that there was any consideration of option (a) above. With respect to this submission, it is seen that the
Government has considered both these options, though not in so many words, and accepted option (b). The State Government has been left undisturbed by the impugned order. One reason given by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned order is that the petitioners were Village Extension Workers, whereas there was one more post above them, namely, Agriculture Extension Officers, and they were persons who have been given placement as Subject Matter Specialists on their attaining necessary educational qualifications. The petitioners claim that they too should have been accepted from the date of their attaining the necessary educational qualifications and given the placement of Subject Matter Specialists. In view of the fact that there is one more post in between petitioners' present post (i.e. Village Extension Worker) and that of Subject Matter Specialist, the High Court has declined their submission. Such a jumping of the promotional ladder was not accepted by the High Court. The High Court, however, observed in the impugned judgment that once the petitioners go back to their parent department in accordance with direction (b), their cases would be examined vis-a- vis their juniors for promotion as Agriculture Extension Officers. Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners expresses an apprehension and points out that the State Government may contend that the petitioners can come to the position of Agriculture Extension Officers and above, only through State Public Service Commission. We, therefore, make it clear that as far as the posts which are meant for promotion are concerned, in those posts the petitioners shall be considered depending upon their seniority vis-a- vis their juniors. We expect the Government to act accordingly. With this clarification we do not see any other reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. (A.S. BISHT) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER