Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Srinagar

Order Date: 24 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Appellant: Syeda Afshana Bhat, represented by Advocate Salih Pirzada, filed LPA No.264/2022 challenging a judgment dated 28 September 2022 that dismissed her writ petition (WP(C) No.135/2021) against the University of Kashmir and other respondents.
  • Respondents: University of Kashmir and officials, represented by Advocates Asif Maqbool and S. M. Ayoub.
  • The writ petition sought quashment of order No.F (Placement Sr. Scale‑CAS) RC/KU/10/124 dated 19 May 2010, communications dated 27 April 2019 and 8 January 2021, and a direction for promotion to Professor ahead of respondent No.6.
  • Background: Both petitioner and respondent No.6 applied for the Lecturer post in the Media Education and Research Centre (MERC) advertised on 22 Jan 2002. Petitioner was appointed on 16 May 2002 (order F‑10(Appt‑Gen)Adm/TW/02). Respondent No.6 was appointed on a regular temporary basis on the same date and later confirmed as Lecturer on 8 Dec 2007 and as Assistant Professor on 8 Dec 2008.
  • On 19 May 2010 the University placed respondent No.6 in the senior scale of Assistant Professors effective 17 May 2007, while petitioner’s senior‑scale placement was effective 17 May 2008.
  • In 2019 petitioner filed a representation objecting to respondent No.6’s seniority; the University replied on 27 Apr 2019 that respondent No.6 was senior, and on 8 Jan 2021 that her temporary service was counted under the UGC Career Advance Scheme (CAS).
  • The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits and for delay/laches, finding no substantive merit.
  • In the appeal, petitioner argued that respondent No.6’s initial appointment was illegal and fraudulent, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and UGC Regulation 10.1(e), and that CAS benefits could not be granted before a substantive appointment.
  • The Court examined the legality of the temporary appointment, the applicability of UGC Regulation 10.1(e) and (f), and distinguished between “counted for promotion” and “eligibility for promotion” under CAS.
  • Supreme Court precedents cited include District Collector & Chairman v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990), Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University (2022), Renu v. District Judge (2014), Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand (2025), Tabassum Qadir Parray v. High Court of J&K (2026), Union of India v. Tarseem Singh (2008), and T. Gnanavel v. R. Sasipriya (2026), all supporting the doctrine of laches in seniority matters.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that respondent No.6’s temporary appointment satisfied UGC regulations and that granting CAS senior‑scale benefits from 17 May 2007 was legally permissible.
  • The appellant’s claim was barred by an inordinate delay of over ten years, acquiescence, and the doctrine of laches; therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
  • No illegality or perversity was found in the lower court’s judgment; the prior order remains in force.

Topics: Seniority Dispute, Judicial Delay