HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Reserved on: 27.11.2025

Pronounced on 11.12.2025

Uploaded on 1.12.2025

Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced: Full Judgment

CJ Court:

LPA No. 98/2022

CM No. 5712/2022

Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agriculture

Sciences and Technology and another.

…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. D. C. Raina, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate

Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, Advocate &

Mr. Junaid, Advocate

v/s

Dr. Robinder Nath Koul and others

…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. J. A. Hamal, Advocate and

Mr. Ankit Dogra, Advocate

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL , JUDGE.

JUDGMENT

‘Oswal-J’

1. The respondents were employees of Sher-e-Kashmir University of

Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST), Kashmir. Owing to the

eruption of militancy, the respondents migrated to the other SKUAST

campus in Jammu. Vide Government order No. 605-GAD of 1991,

Government employees, who migrated from the Valley to Jammu because

2 LPA No. 98/2022

of the turmoil, were termed as "migrant employees”, to be paid migrant

salary. Subsequently, in terms of another Government order dated

29.04.1992, migrant employees were directed to be considered for

promotion, and the effect of the promotion was to be given to such

employees only upon their joining the promoted post.

2. SKUAST, Kashmir, through Notification No. 01/2002, amended Schedule

II to Chapter 2 (Career Advancement Scheme for Teachers), making its

provisions effective prospectively. However, by a subsequent order dated

19.01.2007, the effective date of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)

for Teachers was retrospectively fixed as 27.07.1998.

3. The respondents asserted that they had completed the requisite years of

service as “Assistant Professor/Junior Scientist” and were eligible for

promotion under the CAS to the post of “Associate Professor/Senior

Scientist”. They pressed the appellants for immediate consideration of

their cases, citing that the benefits had already been extended to similarly

situated and even junior colleagues. Despite receiving assurances, the

appellants took no concrete steps to address the respondents' grievance.

4. In the year 2009, the appellants, for the first time, asked the respondents

to rejoin in the Kashmir Valley so that their cases for promotion could be

considered, and the respondents accordingly did so. The respondents were

considered by the Selection Committee for promotion, and the Board of

Management (BOM) of the University thereafter considered and approved

the recommendations of the Selection Committee for the promotion of

“Assistant Professors/Junior Scientists” as “Associate Professors/Senior

Scientists” under the Career Advancement Scheme, as is evident from

3 LPA No. 98/2022

Item Nos. 49(15) and 49(16) of the BOM minutes of the meeting.

However, the Screening Committee, which the respondents allege was

constituted contrary to the rules and all Government orders, recommended

that the promotion orders for the respondents as “Associate

Professors/Senior Scientists” would take effect only from the date of the

respondents' joining SKUAST Kashmir in 2009. Crucially, neither the

Selection Committee nor the BOM had put any such condition while

recommending and approving the promotions cases of the respondents, as

the case may be.

5. Following the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the

appellants issued promotion orders of the respondents vide orders dated

28.10.2010 under the Career Advancement Scheme in their respective

disciplines. These orders stipulated that the promotions would take effect

from the date the respondents rejoined SKUAST, Kashmir, in 2009.

6. Upon receiving their promotion orders, which were conditional, as the

promotion taking effect only from the date they rejoined the Valley in

2009, the respondents raised objections by citing various precedents.

Specifically, they highlighted the case of Dr. Wali Ullah, a similarly

situated migrant from the Valley teaching at SKUAST, Jammu, who had

been granted the benefit of his entire migrant period for his promotion.

7. The appellants acknowledged the respondents' plea, took cognizance of

the request, and referred the matter for examination and opinion to the

Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture Production Department,

J&K, via communication dated 01.04.2011. In response, the Agriculture

4 LPA No. 98/2022

Production Department (letter dated 08.08.2011) directed the appellants to

take appropriate action by:

(i) Bringing the issue before the University's Governing

Body in accordance with the Career Advancement Scheme

guidelines.

(ii) Ensuring the procedure followed by the State

Government was kept in view when considering promotions

for migrant teachers.

8. The Board of Management (BOM) of the appellants, in its meeting held

on 09.08.2011, considered the abovementioned issue under Agenda Item

No. 51(3), but deferred the matter for want of certain clarifications.

9. When the respondents noticed continued inaction on the part of the

appellants, they filed the writ petition bearing SWP No. 2527/2011. That

petition sought to command the appellants to give effect to the promotion

orders made in their favor under the Career Advancement Scheme as

“Associate Professors/Senior Scientists” from the date they completed the

requisite service period as “Assistant Professors/Junior Scientists”. They

also sought the quashing of the condition imposed by the Screening

Committee in the promotion orders, which stipulated that the promotions

would take effect only from the dates of their joining what was called

"active service," arguing it was arbitrary, illegal, and without authority.

10. The appellants objected to the writ petition, asserting that the respondents

did not fulfill the eligibility criteria at the time of completing nine years of

service as “Assistant Professors/Junior Scientists”. This was primarily

5 LPA No. 98/2022

because they were lacking two requisite training courses of approved

duration.

11. The appellants stated that promotions were granted to the respondents

with the explicit condition that they must complete these training courses

within a period of six months from the date of the promotion order i.e.,

27.04.2011. However, the appellants had not received any training

certificates from the said Scientists/Teachers to date, in compliance with

the conditions laid down in their promotion orders as “Associate

Professors/Senior Scientists”. The only exceptions were Dr. R. N. Koul

and Dr. R. K. Tikoo, who were granted exemption in terms of University

Grants Commission‟s communication dated 08.01.2008.

12. Furthermore, the eligibility criteria stipulated that a “Scientist/Assistant

Professor (Senior Scale)”, upon completing five years of service in the

Senior Scale or a total of nine years of service as a “Lecturer/Assistant

Professor with a Ph.D”, would be eligible for promotion to

“Reader/Associate Professor” under the revised Career Advancement

Scheme (CAS). Notwithstanding this, the CAS benefit for the migrant

employees was granted from the date they joined active duties, following

the recommendation of the Screening Committee, which was duly

constituted by the competent authority.

13. Precisely, the appellants objected to the claim of the respondents by

asserting that the respondents did not fulfill the eligibility criteria at the

time of completing nine years of service as “Assistant Professors/Junior

Scientists” because they were lacking two requisite training courses of

approved duration and the promotion was to be granted to them only on

6 LPA No. 98/2022

the condition that they would complete these training course within a

period of six months from the date of issuance of their promotion orders

i.e. upto 27.04.2011. In respect of Dr. Wali Ullah, it was stated that he too

had migrated and was promoted under the Career Advancement Scheme

(CAS) vide order dated 10.12.2007, with effect from 27.07.1998.

14. This retrospective promotion was justified because Dr. Wali Ullah was

actively involved in imparting instructional programs for B.Sc.

Agricultural, M.Sc. Agricultural, and Ph.D. students of SKUAST Jammu.

This involvement was officially communicated by SKUAST, Jammu,

vide letter dated 14.07.2006. Since he had joined SKUAST, Kashmir with

effect from 30.08.2004, the Committee concluded that he was in "active

service" even after migration and thus, recommended his promotion as

Professor-cum-Chief Scientist with effect from 27.07.1998 under the CAS

for Teachers. In essence, the appellants have attempted to segregate the

case of the respondents from that of Dr. Wali Ullah by asserting that he

was on active service while on migration. The appellants admitted the

documents placed on record by the respondents.

15. The respondents filed the rejoinder, contending that the Screening

Committee lacked any statutory recognition. They argued that the

Committee's purpose was solely to screen the documents and it had no

authority to change or alter the date of promotion of the respondents,

which should have been determined in terms of the Career Advancement

Scheme (CAS). The respondents also placed on record certificates

demonstrating that Dr. Suresh Kumar Kakroo (Respondent No. 4), Dr.

Ravi Kumar Nehru (Respondent No. 3), and Dr. Rajinder Kotru

7 LPA No. 98/2022

(Respondent No. 7) had been deputed for and successfully completed the

required training courses. Finally, to rebut the appellants' claim regarding

Dr. Wali Ullah's "active service," the respondents also placed on record an

order dated 16.09.2004 to assert that Dr. Wali Ullah had remained a

migrant employee from 1990 until 2004.

16. The learned writ court vide its judgment dated 24.03.2022 allowed the

writ petition preferred by the respondents and quashed the condition

imposed by the Screening Committee of the appellants in the orders of

promotion of the respondents, whereby the effect of promotion was

accorded from the date of active joining and 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”.

17. The appellants, being aggrieved of the judgment (supra), have challenged

the same on the following grounds:

a. Active Service: They contend that the learned writ court failed to

consider that the respondents were not in active service and that they

only rejoined SKUAST Kashmir to perform their duties in 2009.

b. Condition of Joining: The learned writ court also failed to note the

appellants' contention that the benefits of the promotion were available

only if the promoted employees rejoined their new places of posting in

the Valley.

c. Distinction of Dr. Wali Ullah's Case: It is further contended that the

case of Dr. Wali Ullah cannot be equated with that of the respondents,

as he was actively involved in imparting instructional programs for

8 LPA No. 98/2022

B.Sc. Agricultural, M.Sc. Agricultural, and Ph.D. students of

SKUAST J&K.

d. Validity of Screening Committee: It is also urged that the Screening

Committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor under Section 19,

Chapter-III, of the SKUAST Act. Once the Screening Committee takes

a decision, the same is placed before the statutory Selection

Committee, which recommends the promotion of Associate

Professors/Senior Scientists to the Board of Management (BOM) for

approval.

18. Mr. D. C. Raina, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has argued

that the respondents were not in active service and as such, they were not

promoted from the date they became entitled for promotion in terms of

Career Advancement Scheme and further that the case of Dr. Wali Ullah

was entirely different qua the case of the respondents, as he was in active

service and because of that reason only, he was granted the benefit of

promotion with effect from 27.07.1998.

19. Per contra, Mr. P. N. Raina, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents

has argued that while promoting the respondents, the appellants had not

given effect to orders of promotions of the respondents from the date of

their eligibility, though their promotion to the said post was recommended

by the Selection Committee and approved by the Board of Management

unconditionally. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the

Agenda item No. 49 and the approval of the recommendation of the

Selection Committee and further the note incorporated in the approval,

whereby the Board advised that the promotion in respect of the

recommended candidates under Career Advancement Scheme be given

effect from the due dates as prescribed under the Career Advancement

9 LPA No. 98/2022

Scheme for Teachers. He vehemently argued that the case of Dr. Wali

Ullah was identical to that of the respondents but for unknown reasons, a

condition was incorporated in orders of promotion of the respondents,

whereby the effect of promotion was given from date of joining their

respective places of posting.

20. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

21. The first contention of the appellants is that the learned Writ Court has not

taken into consideration that the respondents were not in active service

and that is why they were not granted the benefit of promotion with effect

from the period they became entitled to promotion. 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. Even in the record of the Screening

Committee, it is nowhere mentioned that the respondents were not in

active service. 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 in view of their retirement in next three years in accordance

with exemption granted by UGC in terms of communication dated

08.01.2008. The cases of the respondents were never rejected by the

Screening Committee for the reason that they were not in „active service‟

but the Screening Committee only recommended that two requisite

training courses of approved duration be completed within a period of six

10 LPA No. 98/2022

months or in the alternative, where exemption can be granted, the said

condition be relaxed. 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.

22. Next, it was contended that Dr. Wali Ullah, who was promoted vide order

dated 10.12.2007, was in active duty during his migration, and was

consequently granted the benefit of promotion with effect from

28.07.1998. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants draws a

distinction by asserting that Dr. Wali Ullah was involved in imparting

instructional programs and joined SKUAST, Kashmir, with effect from

30.08.2004. Because he was deemed to be in active service after

migration, the Committee recommended his promotion to the post of

Professor-cum-Chief Scientist with effect from 27.07.1998 under the

Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for Teachers.

23. A perusal of the order dated 16.09.2004 reveals that Dr. Wali Ullah

migrated from the Valley in the early nineties (90‟s). During his migration

period, he was transferred to and posted at the Regional Agricultural

Research Station, Leh, vide order dated 11.08.1993, but he failed to join at

Leh and instead continued to enjoy migrant status.

24. It is further evident from the said order that only in the year 2004, Dr.

Wali Ullah had requested the appellants for resumption of his duties at the

Division of Entomology in Srinagar. This request was examined and

considered, and he was subsequently allowed to resume his duties in the

Division of Entomology, Shalimar Campus. Thus, it is clear that Dr. Wali

Ullah was granted promotion vide order dated 10.12.2007 with effect

11 LPA No. 98/2022

from 27.07.1998, despite the fact that he did not join Leh following the

order dated 11.08.1993, and continued to enjoy migrant status. He was

allowed to resume active duties only upon his request made through

communication dated 30.08.2004 and the subsequent order dated

16.09.2004. Given these facts, the appellants have miserably failed to

draw any distinction between the case of Dr. Wali Ullah and that of the

respondents.

25. It is settled law that similarly situated persons cannot be treated

differently. Thus, once the respondents and Dr. Wali Ullah are found to be

identically placed for the purposes of the Career Advancement Scheme,

the appellants are required to extend the same promotional benefits to the

respondents as were extended to him.

26. We have meticulously examined the judgment passed by the learned writ

court and we do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity therein.

27. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered view that

the appellants have failed to make out any case for interference in the

well-reasoned judgment of the Writ Court. The appeal, being devoid of

merit, is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, the impugned

judgment shall stand upheld in its entirety.

(RAJNESH OSWAL ) (ARUN PALLI)

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

JAMMU:

11.12.2025

Karam Chand

Whether the order is speaking: Yes

Whether the order is reportable: Yes