Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 137 (JK)

Asif Hamid Khan v. State

2015-03-31

HASNAIN MASSODI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J.:- 1. Petitioner is a member of Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service. He was vide Government Order No. 20-GR (H & P) of 1990 dated 16.07.1990 appointed as Additional Trade Agent in Department of Hospitality and Protocol in the pay scale of Rs. 2030-4050 at Mumbai. He Government order No. HP-TA-21 of 1991 dated 19.11.1991 was paced against the post of Trade Agent in the pay scale of Rs. 2350-4050 Now Revised to Rs. 10000-15200). Petitioner's appointment as Trade Agent was regularized vide Government Order No. 1-GR (H & P) of 1992 dated 21.02.1992. Commissioner Secretary to Government, General Administration department vide communication No. GAD (Ser)KAS-30/93-II dated 30.07.1998 asked the petitioner to exercise option for being considered for appointment to Kashmir Administrative Service (hereafter the Service). However communication was not received by petitioner as it was addressed to his previous place of posting, i.e. Office of Resident Commissioner, New Delhi. He on his posting as Dy. Secretary to Government Revenue Department acquired knowledge about the aforementioned communication and vide his letter dated 14th July 1999, conveyed his option for accord of consideration for appointment to the Service. He as required in terms of Rule 5(1)(C) Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service Rides 1979, submitted requisite undertaking alongside the aforementioned letter. 2. The procedure prescribed for appointment of eligible officers to the Service involves consideration of such officers by Selection Committee constituted by the Government. The State Government as a sequel to the process initiated on 13th July 1998 by soliciting response from eligible officers appointed the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee, so constituted held its sitting on 15th July, 1999. Petitioner was asked by Commissioner Secretary to Government General Administration Department, to appear before the Selection Committee for interview as required under rules. He accordingly, appeared at the venue of Selection committee, deliberations but was not called for interview on the ground that his annual Performance Reports (APR's), were not received from Commissioner Secretary to Government, General Administration Department. Petitioner under bona fide belief that he would be called for interview by Selection Committee, as and when his Annual Performance Report (APRs) were made available to the Committee, waited for instructions from the Selection Committee. 3. Petitioner under bona fide belief that he would be called for interview by Selection Committee, as and when his Annual Performance Report (APRs) were made available to the Committee, waited for instructions from the Selection Committee. 3. Respondents, to petitioner's utter surprise, without affording consideration to his case for appointment to the Service, issued Government Order No. 1014-GAD of 2000, dated 31.08.2000, appointing as many as 50 officers amongst whom 7 officers did not opt for the Service and their appointment was cancelled. 4. Aggrieved with failure of respondents to accord consideration to his appointment to the Service and appointment of his 50 colleagues to the service petitioner on March 15th 2001, submitted a representation to respondent No. 1. The representation was duly forwarded by Revenue Minister of the State Government. This was followed by representation dated 14.01.2002, also forwarded by the Revenue Minister vide his No. HRM/597/2002 dated 18.02.2002. When successive representations did not evoke any response, petitioner addressed representation duly forwarded by Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department, to respondent No. 1. 5. The State Government pursuant to Cabinet decision No. 221/11 dated 30.12.2004, issued Order No. 08-GAD of 2005 dated 04.01.2005, appointing petitioner to the Service in time scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200. This was followed by Government Order No. 917-GAD of 2005 dated 30th July, 2005 notifying/circulating the seniority of members of the Service. The seniority list comprised of two parts-Annexure-A and Annexure-B. Seniority as regards officers mentioned in Annexure-A was final and as regards officers placed in Annexure-B as tentative. Petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 87 in Annexure-B. 6. Petitioner aggrieved that he was unjustifiably denied consideration for appointment to the Service on 15th July, 1999 when his other colleagues-respondents 3 to 52 herein were accorded consideration and appointed to the Service and that he was wrongly shown at Sr. No. 87 in seniority list Circulated vide Government Order No. 917-GAD of 2005 dated 30.07.2005, has come up with writ petition on hand. 7. Petitioner's case is that, he deserved to be considered for appointment to Service, when such consideration was accorded to respondents 3-52 in the petition, on 15th July, 1999, and that reasons given by respondent to justify ignoring petitioner, were untenable under law. 7. Petitioner's case is that, he deserved to be considered for appointment to Service, when such consideration was accorded to respondents 3-52 in the petition, on 15th July, 1999, and that reasons given by respondent to justify ignoring petitioner, were untenable under law. Petitioner insists that failure on the part of respondent No. 2 to forward petitioners APR's to the Selection Committee, cannot be relied upon, by respondents to deny him appointment to Service which otherwise was due to him. It is pleaded that petitioner's appointment to the Service is to be given effect from the date respondents 3-52 were appointed to the Service i.e. 31.08.2000, and he deserves to be placed in the seniority list in Annexure-A at appropriate place amongst respondents 3-52, ignoring officers who though appointed to the service vide Government Order No. 31st August, 2000 did not opt for Service and their appointment was cancelled. 8. Petitioner on 19th September 2006, during pendency of Writ petition submitted detailed representation to respondent No. 1, reiterating his stand detailed in the Writ petition and imploring respondents 1 & 2 to accord consideration to the appointment to the Service, w.e.f. 31.08.2000, and assign him correct place in the seniority list with the appointees of 31st August, 2000. 9. Petitioner filed another Writ petition registered as SWP No. 858/2008. Petitioner's case is that his APRs were duly forwarded by his superior officer to respondent No. 2 and unjustifiably withheld by respondent No. 2 and not forwarded to the Selection Committed. 10. The representation was considered by Establishment-Cum-Selection Committee under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary, in its meeting held on 25.04.2007. The Committee found substance in petitioner's claim for appointment to Service w.e.f. 31.08.2000, against Technical quota. The Committee, however decided to ask General Administration Department to ascertain reasons as to why petitioner was not interviewed by Selection Committee on 15.07.1999, or thereafter and matter was directed to be placed before the Committee for consideration. 11. Principal Secretary Government General Administration Department convened a meeting of officers namely Sh. Gazanfar Hussain, the then Additional Secretary-Special Secretary Abdul Rashid, the then Dy. Secretary and Sh. G.Q. Khan, General Administration Department on 19th June, 2007 to find out the reason as to whey petitioner was not interviewed by Selection Committee on 15th July 1999. 11. Principal Secretary Government General Administration Department convened a meeting of officers namely Sh. Gazanfar Hussain, the then Additional Secretary-Special Secretary Abdul Rashid, the then Dy. Secretary and Sh. G.Q. Khan, General Administration Department on 19th June, 2007 to find out the reason as to whey petitioner was not interviewed by Selection Committee on 15th July 1999. The Committee so constituted found that petitioner was not interviewed, as neither his Administrative Department nor petitioner himself submitted APRs to General Administration Department upto July 1999 or thereafter, despite having been asked to submit the same. In the meantime, one Javid Ahmad Shah was promoted as Trade Agent Mumbai w.e.f. 05.04.1990 as the officer according to respondents ranked senior to the petitioner. 12. Petitioners' representation along with observations/recommendations of Committee convened by Principal Secretary to General Administration Department was included as item-11 in the Agenda to be placed before the Establishment-Cum-Selection Committee scheduled to be held on 14th May 2008 at 11 a.m. The Establishment-Cum-Selection Committee did not consider the matter on the Scheduled date. Pertinent to point out that petitioner's APR's earlier stated to have not been forwarded to General Administration Department were now made available and impediment, if any, in according consideration to petitioner's representation was therefore removed. 13. Petitioner aggrieved that his representation was not favoured consideration by respondents, filed another Writ petition registered as SWP No. 805/2008. Petitioner reiterated the stand taken in earlier petition and further denied that Sh. Javid Ahmad Shah appointed as Trade Agent Mumbai w.e.f. 05.04.1990 ranks senior to him. He prayed for relief, as sought in earlier petition, specifically that he deserved to be appointed to the Service under Technical quota w.e.f. 31.08.2000 and Government order No. 08 of 2005 dated 04.01.2005 given retrospective effect accordingly. He further sought inclusion in seniority list at appropriate place. In an application being CMP No. 1459/2008, filed alongside the writ petition respondents were directed to accord consideration to petitioner's case in accordance with rules and subject to his eligibility. 14. Respondents considered the matter and vide Order No. 1740-GAD of 2009 dated 15.12.2009, petitioner's claim for appointment to Service under Technical quota w.e.f. 31.08.2000 was rejected. The development led to amendment of petition. Petitioner now on the grounds urged in amended petition seeks quashment of Government Order No. 1740-GAD of 2009 dated 15.12.2009, in addition to the relief sought in petition. 15. The development led to amendment of petition. Petitioner now on the grounds urged in amended petition seeks quashment of Government Order No. 1740-GAD of 2009 dated 15.12.2009, in addition to the relief sought in petition. 15. Respondents 1 & 2 resist the writ petition and oppose relief sought on the grounds that the petitioner was not considered by Selection Committee for induction and appointment to the Service under Technical Service/Quota on 30th July 1998, as his Annual Performance Report (APRs) were not made available to the Selection Committee by the concerned department. The respondents reproduce in detail the communications addressed from time to time to the concerned department to furnish APRs of the eligible officer and lament over their indifference and apathy to the requests and reminders made in this regard. The respondents justify petitioner's non-inclusion in Government Order No. 1014-GAD of 2000 dated 31.08.2000, on the ground of non-availability of his - APR's to the Selection Committee. The writ petition is next opposed on the ground that the petitioner failed to question Government Order No. 1014-GAD of 2000 dated 31.08.2000, well in time and instead waited for six long years to voce his grievance. Petitioner is alleged to have slept over the matter and therefore lost right to ask for his appointment to the Service with effect from 31.08.2000, pointed out that as eligibility criteria for appointment under Technical Service/Quota is different from eligibility criteria for appointment to service under feeding Services, the recommendation/sponsorship of respective department in case of appointment to Service under Technical Service/Quota and report as regards outstanding merit and ability of the officers recommended/sponsored are reflected in their APRs, therefore assumes significance. It is pleaded that petitioner's APRs were received much after 30th July 1998, and some of the APRs for the relevant period, i.e., 1992-93 to 1996-97 on 12.05.2008, and that by said date the appointment to the Service under Technical Quota were made from time to time. It is pleaded that petitioner can no more ask for consideration for his appointment to the Service under Technical Service/Quota with effect from 03.08.2000, when his colleagues stand already inducted/appointed to the Service. 16. It is pleaded that petitioner can no more ask for consideration for his appointment to the Service under Technical Service/Quota with effect from 03.08.2000, when his colleagues stand already inducted/appointed to the Service. 16. It is further pleaded that in wake of merger of Trade agencies with Jammu and Kashmir Hospitality and Protocol (Gazetted) Service in April 2002 one of the Services feeding for appointment to the Service, Petitioner was considered and vide Government order No. 08-GAD of 2005 dated 4th January 2005, appointed to the Service against available vacancy. It is insisted that after his aforementioned appointment, it was no more open to the petitioner to seek his appointment to the Service w.e.f. 31st August 2008. It is pleaded that petitioner by not questioning his non-induction in technical quota in 2000 and thereafter avoiding to throw challenge to Government order No. 08-GAD of 2005 dated 4th January 2005, on the ground that he deserved to be appointed/inducted from an earlier date, he has lost his right to maintain the writ petition and invoke writ jurisdiction of the court. 17. It is reiterated that petitioners' representation for his appointment to the Service from 31st August, 2008 was examined by the Establishment-cum-Selection Committee under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary more than once and thereafter the Committee in its meeting held on 25th April 2007, asked the respondents to find out the reasons for petitioners non-consideration by the Selection Committee on 15th July 1999. The Committee constituted is said to have attributed the petitioners non-consideration on 15th July 1998, to non-availability of his APRs and held the claim to be without any merit as the appointment to the Service Under Technical Quota had already concluded. This is said to have lead to Government order No. 1740-GAD of 2009 dated 15th December 2009. 18. Petitioner in his rejoinder filed on 23rd September 2013, justifies delay in approaching the writ court on the ground that matter was all along to the knowledge of petitioner, under consideration of respondents and he, therefore expected the respondents to redress his grievance otherwise genuine and redressable at the level of respondents. It is stated that, it was only on 1st February 2010, that petitioner received a communication with a copy of Order No. 1740-GAD of 2009, dated 15.12.2009, informing the petitioner that his claim was rejected. 19. It is stated that, it was only on 1st February 2010, that petitioner received a communication with a copy of Order No. 1740-GAD of 2009, dated 15.12.2009, informing the petitioner that his claim was rejected. 19. It is pointed out that in SWP No. 805/2008, respondents were directed to expedite the disposal of petitioners' representation and redressal of his grievance and at no point of time respondents accorded consideration to petitioners' claim and therefore the petitioner did not have a cause to question the order rejecting his claim issued a few years after the cause was agitated. It is next pleaded that petitioners' appointment to Service vide Government order No. 08-GAD dated 4th January 2005, is not to stand in his way to claim his appointment to the Service under Technical Quota from the date, it was due to him. Petitioner insists that in wake of SRO 159 dated 23rd April 2002, Jammu and Kashmir Hospitality, Protocol and Agencies (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2002 were, framed and petitioner shown to have been a member of the Service on its initial constitution and therefore appointed to Time Scale of Service as Jammu and Kashmir Hospitality, Protocol and Agencies (Gazetted) Services is one of 15 feeding services for appoint to the Service. The scale in which petitioner was placed vide Government Order No. 08-GAD of 2005 dated 04.01.2005, according to petitioner was held by him in 1990, itself, when he was appointed as Trade Agent at Mumbai. It is pleaded that petitioner has been therefore made to stagnate in the same pay scale for about 23 years. Refuting that non-availability of APRs would be reason to refuse consideration, petitioner points out that to his knowledge his APRS of 1997-98 to 2003-04, were not available to the Establishment-cum-Selection Committee on the date he was appointed to the Service vide Government Order No. 08-GAD of 2005 dated 4th January 2005. 20. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard counsel for the parties. 21. Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Services Rule 1979, governing appointment to the Service came to be amended vide SRO 177 of 1993 dated 24th September 1993, Rule-5 recast vide aforesaid amendment, reads as under- (a) By competitive examination at the junior scale. (b) By promotion to the Time Scale of the Service amongst the members of 15 feeding Services grade in the respective departmental Services as mentioned in 5(1)(b). (b) By promotion to the Time Scale of the Service amongst the members of 15 feeding Services grade in the respective departmental Services as mentioned in 5(1)(b). (c) By selection to the Time Scale of the Service from amongst the person of outstanding merit and ability serving in connection with the affairs of State in Departments Services other than those covered under clause (b) or in Autonomous Bodies/Government Owned Public Sector Undertakings carrying the pay scale equivalent or higher than the Time Scale of KAS, on the recommendations of the concerned Department/Autonomous Body Government Owned Public Sector Undertaking respectively" 22. A bare look at the rules would indicate that one of the source for appointment by promotion to Time Scale of the Service is the 15 feedings Services. Other source for appointment by selection to Time Scale of the Service, is the officers with outstanding merit and ability serving in connection with affairs of State in Departmental services other than 15 feeding Services or Autonomous bodies/Government Owned Public Sector Undertakings, carrying the pay scale equivalent or higher than the Time Scale of Service on the recommendation of the concerned Departments, Autonomous Bodies/Government Owned Public Sector Undertakings respectively. In other words an officer not member of any of the 15 feeding Services would be considered for appointment by selection to the Time Scale of Service, subject to the conditions laid down in Rule 5(1)(b) with brief overview of the rule position in mind, let us proceed to examine the petitioner's case. 23. It is pertinent to point out at the outset that none of the factual averments made in the petition is denied by respondents. To illustrate, respondents do not deny that petitioner was appointed as Additional Trade Agent vide Government Order No. 20-GR (H & P) of 1990, dated 16.07.1990 in the pay scale of Rs. 2030-4050 and vide Government Order No. 29-GR (H & P) of 1990, dated 13.12.1990, confirmed in the same pay scale and thereafter vide Government Order No. HP-TA-21 of 1991 dated 19.11.1991 was placed in the pay scale of 2350-4050 w.e.f. 13th December 1990. It is also not denied that petitioner's Services were regularized as Trade Agent vide Government order No. 1-GR(H & P) of 1992 dated 21.02.1992. Petitioner, therefore was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 2350-4050, (now revised Rs. 10,000-15200), w.e.f. 13th December 1990. It is also not denied that petitioner's Services were regularized as Trade Agent vide Government order No. 1-GR(H & P) of 1992 dated 21.02.1992. Petitioner, therefore was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 2350-4050, (now revised Rs. 10,000-15200), w.e.f. 13th December 1990. This is the pay scale in which the officers appointed to Time Scale of the Service are placed. In other words Petitioner availed Time Scale of the Service w.e.f. 13th December 1990. He was placed 15 years placed vide Government Order No. 08-GAD dated 4th January 2005, in the same pay scale. He has been, therefore, allowed to stagnate in same pay scale for over 15 years. 24. The respondents likewise admit that petitioner was eligible and deserved to be considered for appointment to the Time Scale of Service in the year 1998. This is the reason that he was vide communication No. GAD (Ser) KAS-30/93-II dated 30.07.1998, asked to exercise his option for being considered for appointment to the Service. It is therefore, nobody's case that petitioner was not eligible for appointment to the Service. However, respondents justify his non-consideration on the ground that petitioner's APRs were not made available by the concerned department to Selection Committee resulting in his non-consideration. 25. In view of bold and brave admission made by respondents as regards the averments made in petition and petitioners claim, the controversy narrows down to justifiability of non-consideration of petitioner for appointment to the Time Scale of Service under Technical quota in terms of Rule 5(1)(b) on account of non-availability of APRs. 26. The responsibility to record Annual Performance Report of an officer is on the Head of Administrative Department. Government Order No. 1311-GAD of 2001 dated 09.11.2001, delineates mode and method of initiating/reviewing and accepting such Report. The Report is to be initiated by the Initiating Officer, reviewed by the Reviewing Authority, i.e. authority superior to Initiating Officer and the report thereafter accepted by the Government, i.e. head of the Administrative Department, acting on behalf of the-Government. The aforementioned Government order also provides for time frame within which the annual report is to be generated, initiated, reviewed and accepted. The report initiated, reviewed and accepted would obviously relate to the preceding financial year. Circular 43-GAD of 2014 dated 29.08.2014 also deals with APRs of the officers and makes reference to Government Order. No. 1311-GAD dated 9th November 2001. The report initiated, reviewed and accepted would obviously relate to the preceding financial year. Circular 43-GAD of 2014 dated 29.08.2014 also deals with APRs of the officers and makes reference to Government Order. No. 1311-GAD dated 9th November 2001. The circular is not however, relevant to the present controversy. 27. From the above brief overview of the Government instructions/guidelines, it transpires that Government and not the officer is saddled with responsibility to record Annual Performance Report. It has been held in 2009 (Supp.) JKJ 565 [HC] titled Mohd. Tayub Malla v. State & Ors., that an employee cannot be denied promotion on the ground that his Officers), requiring to record Annual Performance Report have not recorded Annual Remarks (APRs) and that annual remarks are not recorded, it is not the mistake of official. 28. The duty cast on the superior officers of a gazetted officer in terms of aforementioned Government order, in the present context obviously would include the duty to forward APR of preceding three years to the Selection Committee or, Establishment-cum-Selection Committee, required to take decision as regards appointment to the Service including appointment to Time Scale of the Service under Technical quota. In case the Government takes a decision that an officer is eligible to be considered for appointment to the Service but fails for one or other reason to forward his APRs for preceding three years, the officer asked to appear before the Selection Committee cannot be held responsible for such failure and visited with adverse consequences when he admittedly has not contributed to such consequences. Failure on part of Selection Committee to accord consideration to petitioner's appointment to the Service on 15th July 1999, therefore cannot be excused or justified on any of the grounds setout in the order impugned in the petition or reply filed by respondents in opposition to writ petition. The order No. 1740-GAD of 2009 dated 15.12.2009, impugned in the petition, in the circumstances cannot stand legal scrutiny and is bound to be set-aside. 29. The stand taken by respondents to resist the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches is not to succeed as it does not find support from the record available on the file. From the perusal of available record, it transpires that consideration to petitioner's claim, though agitated well in time was deferred from time to time. 29. The stand taken by respondents to resist the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches is not to succeed as it does not find support from the record available on the file. From the perusal of available record, it transpires that consideration to petitioner's claim, though agitated well in time was deferred from time to time. The course of events traced elsewhere in this judgment would reveal that petitioner voiced his grievance through a representation on March 15th 2001, and thereafter on 14th January 2002. The representations were duly entertained and forwarded by Revenue Minister to concerned Department for redressal of his grievance. Once petitioner's placement in the seniority list circulated vide Government Order No. 917-GAD of 2005 dated 30.07.2005, was shown at a lower place, he immediately approached the writ Court with SWP No. 946/06. His grievance remained to be addressed for next few years notwithstanding ad-interim orders, directing respondents to accord consideration to petitioners claim for giving effect to his appointment to the Service from 31st August 2000. It is only after the Establishment-cum-Selection Committee in its meeting held on 31st August 2008, decided to appoint a Committee to find out reasons for petitioner's non-consideration by Selection Committee on 15th July 1999, that Petitioner's claim for the first time received a serious consideration at some level. The petitioner therefore cannot be said to be guilty of delay and latches and petition held not maintainable on said ground. 30. The attempt made to see the writ petition dismissed on the ground that once petitioner accepted his appointment to Time Scale of the Service vide Government Order No. 08-GAD of 2005 dated 04th January 2005, he is to be taken to have abandoned his claim for appointment to the Service w.e.f. 31st August 2000, must also fail. It is pertinent to point-out that petitioner in 1998 as admitted by respondents had a right to be considered for appointment to the Service under Technical quota in terms of Rule 5(1)(c) of J & K Administrative Service 1979. It may be stated at the cost of repetition, that petitioner was held eligible for such consideration and therefore, in terms of Rule 5(1)(c) of 1979 Rules, asked to exercise his option and thereafter asked to appear before the Selection Committee on 15.07.1999. It may be stated at the cost of repetition, that petitioner was held eligible for such consideration and therefore, in terms of Rule 5(1)(c) of 1979 Rules, asked to exercise his option and thereafter asked to appear before the Selection Committee on 15.07.1999. Petitioner, as stated more than once, was denied consideration not because he was not eligible to be considered for appointment to the Service but for reasons that his APRs from 1996 to 1998 were not received by Selection Committee. 31. Petitioner while engaged in a battle to vindicate his stand that non-receipt to APRs by Selection Committee would not be a valid reason to deny consideration and get his grievance redressed as regards his appointment to the Service, w.e.f. 31st August, 2000 was in wake of merger of Trade Agencies with Jammu and Kashmir Hospitality and Protocol (Gazetted) Service-one of the feeding Service in terms of Rule 5(1)(b), considered for appointment to the Time Scale of the Service under aforesaid rule. He on such consideration was appointed to Time Scale of Service vide Government Order No. 08-GAD of 2005 dated 4.01.2005. His appointment does not extinguish a right accrued to him in the year 1998, for appointment to the Service under Technical quota. His cause survives despite his subsequent appointment ordered on 4.01.2005. 32. The plea that as exercise to make appointment to the Service under Technical quota in terms of Rule 5(1)(c) was closed, petitioner does not deserve to be considered for appointment under such quota w.e.f. 31.08.2000, also cannot be accepted. Petitioner cannot be exposed to any hardship and his Service carrier and seniority prejudicially affected only because non-receipt of petitioner's APRs, by Selection Committee made it to ignore petitioner and deny him consideration. It needs no emphasis that right to promotion and due placement in seniority list is an integral part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 Constitution of India. This is the reason that even where APRs of an officer for the relevant period are adverse, the Selection Committee has to go for sealed cover procedure and even in such an extreme case, not to deny consideration. If in case of adverse APRs, consideration is not to be denied, how would such a course be open in case APRs are not received well in time and on receipt found to have graded the officer very good or outstanding for the relevant period. If in case of adverse APRs, consideration is not to be denied, how would such a course be open in case APRs are not received well in time and on receipt found to have graded the officer very good or outstanding for the relevant period. In the present case APRs of petitioner stand received by Competent Authority and are available as on date and all the APRs reflect his excellent performance during relevant period while serving the State Government. 33. A feeble attempt is made to defeat the petitioner's claim on the ground that another officer at some point of time was senior to petitioner. In the first place the material available on file does not extend any support to the case set up. Secondly what is alleged in the petition and found to have merit is that petitioner was not considered at all by the Selection Committee on 15th July, 1999 notwithstanding his eligibility only on the ground that his APRs were not received by Selection Committee and that such a recourse was not available to respondents or permissible under law. 34. For the reasons discussed, Writ petition Nos. 946/2006 & 805/2008 are allowed and the Order No. 1740-GAD of 2009 dated 15.12.2009, is quashed. The respondents by a writ of mandamus are commanded to accord consideration to petitioners appointment to the Service under Technical quota in terms of Rule 5(1)(c) J & K Administrative Service Rules w.e.f. 31st August 2000, i.e. the date when his colleagues were appointed to the Service. Let Establishment-cum-Selection Committee be convened within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order. The Establish-cum-Selection Committee shall accord consideration to petitioners claim having regard to APRs for the period 1995 to 1997 admittedly received by respondents and take a decision in the matter within two weeks, thereafter. The respondents are expected to be alive to the fact that justice has eluded petitioner for last 15 years, and therefore they need to adhere to above time frame. Once the consideration is accorded and decision taken, Petitioner's seniority shall be re-fixed in light of such decision after hearing officer(s), if any adversely affected by such re-fixation. Petitioner shall be granted all the service benefits due to him, like promotion etc. that petitioner would have earned in wake of his appointment to the Service under Technical quota w.e.f. 31.08.2000. 36. SWP Nos. Petitioner shall be granted all the service benefits due to him, like promotion etc. that petitioner would have earned in wake of his appointment to the Service under Technical quota w.e.f. 31.08.2000. 36. SWP Nos. 946/2006 and 805/2008, disposed of along with connected CMPs.