Transfer Order in J&K Skill Development Department Triggers Allegations of Preferential Treatment
RC Sharma Chanakya
Jammu: The issuance of Order No. 01 of JK (DSD) 2026 dated January 2, 2026, by the Jammu and Kashmir Skill Development Department has sparked fresh debate over the opacity and inconsistency of the department’s transfer policy. The latest transfer order has drawn criticism from employees and observers, who allege that it reflects preferential treatment in favour of a particular official while raising questions about adherence to established administrative norms.
At the centre of the controversy is Rayees Ahmed Fazily, a Vocational Instructor in the Painting General trade under the Industrial Training Institute (ITI) sector. According to documents, Fazily was attached to the Directorate of Skill Development Department through Directorate Order No. 825 of 2006 dated October 18, 2006, while serving as a Junior Instructor (Painting General – Migrant Substitute) at Government ITI Bandipora. The attachment reportedly took place before his regularisation as a permanent employee, and critics allege and rightly so as per available records that he remained posted at the Directorate for nearly two decades instead of performing his primary teaching duties at an ITI.
Departmental records indicate that on July 23, 2025, after almost twenty years at the Directorate, Fazily was transferred to Government ITI Anantnag through Directorate Order No. 216 of 2025, where he reportedly joined duty. However, within less than two months, he was transferred again to Government ITI Bandipora through Directorate Order No. 248 of 2025 dated September 18, 2025, reportedly on the grounds of ‘inconvenient posting ‘ and new place of posting was the nearest institute to his hometown of Gamroo, Bandipora.
The controversy deepened when, just three months later, under Order No. 01 JK (DSD) of 2026 dated January 2, 2026. they transferred him once again from ITI Bandipora to the Directorate of Skill Development Department in Jammu. Critics argue that the transfer is unusual because, at Serial No. 12, the order clearly states the new place of posting as “Directorate of Skill Development, J&K against any available vacancy”, and to a place where he served for two decades at a stretch. They contend that the wording neither specifies a sanctioned vacancy nor identifies any particular assignment, leading to questions about the administrative basis of the posting.
Employees familiar with the department have questioned whether the transfer complies with the government’s transfer policy. They argue that vocational instructors are appointed to impart technical training in their respective trades at Industrial Training Institutes and that prolonged administrative postings deprive students of qualified instructors while requiring the department to make alternative arrangements. According to those raising the issue, such arrangements may also place an avoidable financial burden on the public exchequer by engaging another soul to fill the gap.
Further allegations have been made regarding Fazily’s service record, including the circumstances surrounding his initial appointment, his deputation for computer training while serving as a temporary employee, changes in cadre during regularisation, acquisition of higher educational qualifications after entering service, and his continued administrative assignments despite belonging to a teaching cadre. These allegations have not been independently verified, and no official response from either the Skill Development Department or the concerned officer was available at the time of publication.
The controversy has renewed demands for an independent review of transfer practices within the Skill Development Department. Employees and observers have called upon the competent authorities to examine whether the repeated transfers were made in accordance with established rules and whether all employees are being treated equally under the department’s transfer policy. They maintain that transparency, fairness and uniform application of service rules are essential to preserving institutional integrity and ensuring that vocational education is not adversely affected by administrative decisions.
The Daily Jammu Jottings possesses documentary evidence relating to the case and has urged the competent authorities to conduct a comprehensive inquiry to ensure accountability, transparency, and fairness within the Skill Development Department.
