Item No.105 Suppl List-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) No.462/2021 in SWP No.132/2017 c/w CCP(S) No.111/2021 in SWP No.2305/2017 CCP(S) No.39/2022 in SWP No.132/2017 TARIQ AHMAD SHEIKH & ORS. …PETITIONER(S) Through: Mr. B. A. Bashir, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Azeem Rasic, Advocate. Mr. Saleem Gul, Advocate. Vs. SANJAY VERMA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: Mr. Mohsin S. Qadiri, Sr. AAG, with Ms. Nadiya Abdulla, Assisting Counsel. Mr. Irfan Ali Shah, Conservator of Forest, North, and Mr. Faisal Farooq, DFO, Kehmil Kupwara, present in person. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR,JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 18.07.2025 1. Through the medium of present contempt petitions, the petitioners are seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents/contemnors for having violated judgments/orders dated 20th July, 2018 and 11.09.2018 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No.132/2017 and SWP No.2305/2018 respectively. 2. It appears that the petitioners, who claim to be working in respondent department as Class-IV employees, had approached the Writ Court for their promotion as Forest Guards. SWP No.132/2017 was disposed of in terms of order dated 20th July, 2018 and SWP 2 No.2305/2017 was disposed of in terms of order dated 11.09.2018 by extending identical directions which are reproduced as under: i. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion against the post of Forest Guards along with other eligible employees in tune with the mandate of the relevant recruitment rules as detailed out in the body of the order. ii. Consideration shall be affected and decision taken within a period of two months from the date certified copy of the order is served upon the respondents. 3. When the respondents/contemnors did not implement the aforesaid directions of the Writ Court, the petitioners approached this Court invoking its contempt jurisdiction. Accordingly, contempt petition bearing CPSW No.609/2018, came to be filed by the petitioners before this Court which was disposed of in terms of order dated 16.12.2020 by giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the new incumbents for seeking implementation of the judgment in case the same has remained unimplemented. 4. It appears that the petitioners have approached the new incumbents/contemnors by filing a representation on 29.12.2020 but in spite of this, the judgment of the Writ Court was not implemented which prompted the petitioners to file the present contempt petitions. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have committed a grave breach of rules by promoting executive cadre employees in excess of their quota thereby infringing and violating the rights of ministerial cadre employees to which the petitioners belong. It 3 has been contended that in the final seniority list issued by the Forest Department in 2014 vide its circular dated 01.01.2014, name of petitioner Tariq Ahmad Wani figures at serial No.15 whereas name of petitioner Tariq Ahmad Sheikh figures at serial No.21, who has been promoted vide order No.73/2025 dated 23.05.2025. It has been contended that the persons figuring at serial Nos.19, 20, 21, 25 and 45 in the seniority list of 2014 have been promoted in the year 2016 leaving out the petitioners who are figuring senior to the said persons in the seniority list. 6. In short, the grievance of the petitioners is that their juniors have been promoted by the respondents while ignoring their claims for promotion even though as per the seniority list of 2014, they were figuring senior to those who have been promoted. It has been claimed that even though some of the contempt petitioners have been promoted, still then their promotion needs to be given effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted and those of the contempt petitioners who have not been promoted are to be promoted to the post of Forest Guard with effect from the dates on which their juniors have been promoted. 7. It has been contended that as per the directions of the Writ Court, the promotions were to be effected in tune with the mandate of the Recruitment Rules and the respondents by ignoring the superior claims of the petitioners on account of their seniority have violated the judgments of the Writ Court. 4 8. The respondents/contemnors have claimed that in pursuance of Government Order No.198-FST of 2012 dated 25.04.2012, a detailed circular was issued on 09.05.214, whereunder it was directed that cadre management of Class-IV employees shall henceforth be looked after by the respective Conservator of Forests who were directed to strictly follow the prescribed rules i.e. J&K Forest (Subordinate Service) Recruitment Rules, 1991 read with amendment made vide SRO 84 of 2003 while preparing select list of eligible Class-IV employees for promotion to the next higher post. It has been claimed that seniority of Class-IV employees was maintained at district level in pursuance of Rule 22 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 and as per the instructions conveyed by Finance Department vide No.FD-Code/119/2021-03-1044 dated 28.10.2021, a combined seniority list of Class-IV employees was to be maintained in terms of Rule 24(1) of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956. 9. The respondents have further submitted that the redesignation of Helpers in existing hierarchies of the Forest Department by virtue of Government Order dated 19.08.2015 followed by Government Order dated 02.02.2016, the seniority of Class-IV employees of the respondent Department underwent change. It has been submitted that the seniority of Class-IV employees has been updated from time to time after the year 2014 in pursuance of the instructions issued by the General Administration Department and the same is being maintained 5 district-wise in accordance with the provisions contained in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010. 10. The stand of the respondents is that because the seniority of the Class-IV employees of the respondent Department is being maintained district-wise as the said posts are district cadre posts, the seniority list of 2014 underwent change and the seniority of petitioners as also of other Class-IV employees of the respondent Department has been maintained district-wise and accordingly seniority of petitioner Tariq Ahmad Wani was fixed at serial No.70 of the combined seniority list of District cadre Srinagar as it stood on 01.01.2025. It has been claimed that the seniority of MTS/Class-IV employees in respective district cadres has been determined on the basis of their initial appointment and, therefore, seniority of petitioner Tariq Ahmad Wani has been fixed in District cadre Srinagar on the basis of his initial appointment. Similarly, regarding other contempt petitioners, the respondents have taken a stand that their seniority underwent change after determination of their seniority on district-wise basis and, as such, they cannot claim promotion on the basis of their seniority as reflected in the seniority list of 2014. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 12. If we have a look at the directions of the Writ Court passed on 20th July, 2018 and 11.09.2018, the respondents have been asked to 6 consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion against the posts of Forest Guard along with other eligible employees in tune with and mandate of the Recruitment Rules i.e. J&K Forest (Subordinate Service) Recruitment Rules, 1991. The said Rules provide for appointment to the post of Forest Guard 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. The seniority, of course, would be an important criteria for in-service employees claiming promotion to the posts of Forest Guard. The Writ Court has directed the respondents to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioners for their promotion to the post of Forest Guard on the basis of the Rules holding the field. 13. The petitioners claim that they were senior to those persons who have been granted promotion to the posts of Forest Guard. The respondents/contemnors, on the other hand, claim that after the issuance of seniority list in the year 2014, many developments took place which prompted the respondent Department to re-frame the seniority list of Class-IV employees. These developments include the redesignation of Helpers and the instructions, whereunder the respondent Department was asked to maintain seniority list of Class-IV employees at district level in accordance with the provisions contained in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010. The petitioners contend that the respondents could not have included the Helpers in the seniority list as there were directions from this Court in a different writ petition in this regard. The 7 petitioners also claim that the respondents could not have reframed the seniority list in the manner in which they have done. 14. The question that arises for determination is as to whether the aforesaid aspects of the matter can be gone into by this Court while deciding a contempt petition. 15. The validity of the action of respondents in reframing the seniority list and the merit of the contention of the petitioners that the respondent Department could not have included the Helpers in the seniority list and that reframing of the seniority list was not permissible in law, are matters which cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its contempt jurisdiction. There was no positive direction from the Writ Court that the promotion of the petitioners has to be accorded only in accordance with the seniority list of 2014. Had it been so, perhaps it could have been stated that the respondents/contemnors have violated the directions of the Writ Court. The only direction from the Writ Court was to consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the rules. This is what has been done by the respondents/ contemnors, whereafter some of the petitioners have already been accorded promotion as Forest Guards on account of their higher position in the seniority list of their respective districts. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find it a case of willful disobedience of the directions of the Writ Court on the part of the respondents/contemnors. If at all the petitioners have any grievance about their placement in the seniority list or against the redrawn 8 seniority list, perhaps the remedy for them lies elsewhere and not in these proceedings. The contempt proceedings are, therefore, closed and the contempt petitions are disposed of. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 18.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No