Bablu Sharma vs HEALTH AND MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 16 October 2026

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: - a) “That this Hon’ble Tribunal may allow the instant Original Application; b) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to issue an order directing Respondents to consider the qualification (Electrician training course) of the Applicants and approve their eligibility for in-service promotion in the Electrical cadre (Lineman); c) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned rule/restriction mentioned in the seniority list dated 21/05/2022; and d) To pass such other orders which are found just fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

2. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking directions to the respondents to recognize their technical qualifications in the Electrician Trade and declare them eligible for consideration for in-service promotion to the post of Lineman in the Electrical Cadre. They have also challenged the restriction incorporated in the seniority list issued in 2022, whereby technical qualifications acquired without prior permission of the competent authority are not to be considered for promotion.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were appointed as Class-IV employees in the Associated Hospitals of Government Medical College, Jammu. Applicant No. 1, Bablu Sharma, was appointed vide order dated 22.10.2014 and joined service on 12.01.2015, whereas applicant No. 2, Amit Sharma, was appointed vide order dated 30.09.2014 and joined service on 27.09.2014. Both applicants had acquired technical qualifications in the Electrician Trade from Government Industrial Training Institutes before entering government service.

4. The applicants submit that the advertisement under which they were appointed prescribed Matriculation as the minimum qualification and

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

10+2 as the maximum qualification for Class-IV posts in terms of SRO-99 of 2008. However, the advertisement did not contain any condition that a technical qualification acquired before appointment would not be recognized for future promotion.

5. It is further submitted that the respondents issued circulars dated 26.02.2016 and 19.11.2019, calling upon Class-IV employees to furnish details of their educational and technical qualifications for inclusion in the departmental records. Pursuant to these circulars, the applicants submitted their Electrician Trade certificates, which were entered in their service records. Their names also appeared in the final seniority list issued on 20.05.2020 at serial Nos. 659 and 524, respectively.

6. The applicants rely upon Government Order No. 34-HME of 2018 dated 11.01.2018, which prescribed the method of recruitment and promotion to various posts in Government Medical Colleges and Associated Hospitals. According to the applicants, the said order provided for filling 75% of the posts of Lineman through direct recruitment and 25% through promotion from eligible in-service candidates possessing Matriculation and a recognized diploma in the

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

Electrical Trade. They submit that there was no condition requiring the diploma to have been obtained after entering government service.

7. The applicants further submit that they obtained information under the Right to Information Act, which revealed that no general restriction had been imposed by the General Administration Department against consideration of technical qualifications acquired before appointment. They have also referred to the cases of Tilak Raj, Yogi Raj, Gansham and Kulsooma, who, according to them, were promoted despite having acquired their technical qualifications before joining government service.

8. The grievance of the applicants arose when the respondents issued a communication dated 20.04.2022 seeking particulars of employees for promotional consideration, but their names were not included. They submitted a representation dated 21.04.2022 requesting consideration of their cases for promotion to the post of Lineman. However, no decision was communicated to them.

9. The applicants are also aggrieved by the condition incorporated in the seniority list issued in 2022, providing that technical qualifications would be considered for promotion only where the employee had obtained prior permission from the competent authority. According to

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

the applicants, this condition is arbitrary because they had acquired their technical qualifications before entering government service, when there was no question of seeking permission from the department.

10. The applicants contend that they possess the qualifications prescribed for promotion and cannot be denied consideration merely because their diplomas were acquired before appointment. They have, therefore, approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief.

11. The respondents have filed their reply opposing the Original Application. The respondents admit that the applicants were appointed as Class-IV employees in 2014. However, they submit that appointments to Class-IV posts were governed by SRO-99 of 2008, which prescribed Matriculation as the minimum and 10+2 as the maximum educational qualification. According to the respondents, the applicants cannot claim promotional benefits merely on the basis of technical qualifications acquired before their appointment.

12. The respondents further submit that Government Order No. 457- JK(HME) of 2023 dated 06.02.2023 has prescribed the revised recruitment rules for various posts in Government Medical Colleges. Under the revised rules, the post of Lineman no longer exists, whereas

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

the posts of Junior Electrician/D.G. Operator have been provided. The method of recruitment to these posts includes 75% direct recruitment and 25% promotion from eligible in-service candidates possessing the prescribed technical qualifications and requisite length of service.

13. The respondents state that both applicants completed their Electrician Trade courses during August 2012 to July 2014, before entering government service. A clarification was therefore sought from the Administrative Department regarding recognition of such qualifications for promotion under the in-service quota.

14. The Administrative Department, vide communication dated 26.06.2023, clarified that technical or higher qualifications should be considered only in respect of Class-IV employees who had obtained proper permission from the competent authority. Relying upon this clarification, the respondents submit that the applicants are not entitled to recognition of their technical qualifications for promotion, as they had acquired the same before entering government service without obtaining departmental permission.

15. The respondents maintain that their action is in accordance with the applicable rules and administrative instructions. They have accordingly prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the pleadings and material available on record.

17. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the respondents can refuse to recognize the technical qualifications of the applicants for promotional purposes merely because those qualifications were acquired before their appointment as Class-IV employees and without obtaining prior permission from the department.

18. At the outset, we find that the controversy involved in the present Original Application is substantially covered by the judgment dated 28.07.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 594/2022, titled Dolly Sharma v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others. The said judgment was rendered by this Tribunal involving the same department and an almost identical dispute regarding recognition of technical qualifications acquired before entering government service.

19. In O.A. No. 594/2022, the applicant was also appointed as a Class-IV employee in the Associated Hospitals of Government Medical College, Jammu. She had acquired her Female Multi-Purpose Health Worker qualification before appointment. The respondents had refused to recognize her qualification for promotion on the ground

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

that she had not obtained prior permission from the competent authority. The same condition incorporated in the seniority list of 2022 and the clarification dated 26.06.2023 were also involved in that case.

20. After examining the applicable recruitment rules and the submissions of both sides, this Tribunal held that SRO-99 of 2008 governs eligibility for initial appointment to Class-IV posts and cannot automatically be extended to deny promotional consideration on the basis of a technical qualification acquired before appointment. It was further held that the eligibility conditions for initial recruitment and those for promotion operate in different fields and must be examined separately.

21. The Tribunal also observed that a person who has not yet entered government service cannot reasonably be expected to obtain permission from a department with which no employer-employee relationship exists. The requirement of prior departmental permission may be relevant where an existing government employee wishes to undertake a course during service. However, the same condition cannot ordinarily be applied to a qualification acquired before

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

appointment, unless the applicable recruitment rules expressly provide otherwise.

22. The Tribunal further held that a seniority list is meant to determine the relative position of employees in a particular cadre. It cannot, by itself, introduce additional eligibility conditions for promotion which are not provided under the governing recruitment rules. Similarly, an administrative clarification cannot override or amend the statutory recruitment rules.

23. In that case, the Tribunal also examined the communication dated 26.06.2023 relied upon by the respondents and held that such a subsequent clarification could not retrospectively deprive an employee of the right to have an existing technical qualification considered for promotion, particularly when no such restriction was shown to exist under the applicable rules.

24. Accordingly, O.A. No. 594/2022 was allowed. The respondents were directed to recognize the applicant’s technical qualification and place her case before the competent Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules. The Tribunal also clarified that recognition of a qualification does not automatically confer a right to promotion, which remains subject to

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

seniority, suitability, availability of vacancies and other prescribed conditions.

25. Coming to the present case, we find that the applicants stand on substantially the same footing. Both applicants acquired their Electrician Trade qualifications before joining government service. Their qualifications were subsequently furnished to the department pursuant to the circulars issued by the respondents and were entered in the departmental records. The respondents have not disputed that the applicants completed their technical courses from Government Industrial Training Institutes.

26. The principal objection raised by the respondents is that the applicants had not obtained prior permission from the competent authority before acquiring their technical qualifications. However, this objection has already been examined and answered in O.A. No. 594/2022. The applicants were not government employees when they underwent the Electrician Trade courses. Therefore, they could not have been expected to obtain permission from the respondents at that stage.

27. We are also of the view that the maximum educational qualification prescribed under SRO-99 of 2008 for initial recruitment to Class-IV posts cannot, by itself, be treated as a permanent restriction against

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

consideration of a technical qualification for future promotion. The applicants were selected and appointed by the respondents, and their appointments have not been challenged or cancelled. Their eligibility for promotion must therefore be examined under the rules governing the promotional post.

28. It is important to note that Government Order No. 34-HME of 2018 provided for filling 25% of the posts of Lineman through promotion from eligible in-service candidates possessing the prescribed technical qualification. The respondents have not identified any express provision in the said order requiring that the Electrician Trade diploma must necessarily have been acquired after appointment.

29. The respondents have also relied upon Government Order No. 457- JK(HME) of 2023, under which the post of Lineman is stated to have been replaced by the posts of Junior Electrician/D.G. Operator. The revised rules also provide for filling 25% of the posts through promotion from eligible in-service candidates possessing the prescribed technical qualification and requisite service. The respondents have not shown any express provision in the revised rules which makes a diploma acquired before appointment invalid for promotional purposes.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

30. Therefore, the change in the designation or structure of the promotional posts does not, by itself, justify rejection of the applicants’ technical qualifications. The respondents are required to examine their eligibility against the appropriate posts in the Electrical Cadre under the recruitment rules applicable at the relevant time.

31. We also find substance in the applicants’ contention that similarly situated employees had earlier been promoted despite possessing technical qualifications acquired before appointment. The applicants have referred to specific instances in support of their claim. Although promotion granted to another employee cannot automatically create an entitlement to the same benefit, the department is expected to apply the recruitment rules fairly and consistently. Any difference in treatment must have a reasonable basis supported by the applicable rules.

32. Government service provides employees with opportunities to improve their skills and progress in their careers. Where an employee already possesses a recognized technical qualification relevant to a promotional post, that qualification should not be disregarded merely because it was obtained before joining service, unless the rules

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

specifically require such exclusion. A fair opportunity for promotional consideration is an important aspect of equality in public employment.

33. We are conscious that promotion is not an automatic right. An employee must fulfil the eligibility conditions prescribed under the applicable recruitment rules, including the required length of service, seniority, suitability and other relevant requirements. Availability of a vacancy in the prescribed promotional quota is also an important consideration. However, an otherwise eligible employee cannot be excluded from consideration on the basis of a condition which is not supported by the governing rules.

34. In the present case, the applicants are not seeking promotion merely because they possess Electrician Trade diplomas. Their principal grievance is that their qualifications are being disregarded solely because they were acquired before appointment without prior departmental permission. This issue has already been decided in O.A. No. 594/2022, and we find no material distinction which would justify taking a different view.

35. Judicial consistency also requires that similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive similar treatment, particularly when the controversy arises from the same departmental instructions and

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 16 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

recruitment provisions. We, therefore, find it appropriate to follow the reasoning and conclusions recorded by this Tribunal in its judgment dated 28.07.2026 in O.A. No. 594/2022.

36. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the respondents are not justified in refusing to recognize the applicants’ Electrician Trade qualifications solely on the ground that the same were acquired before entering government service without prior departmental permission. The applicants are entitled to have their eligibility for promotion examined in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules, without applying the aforesaid restriction.

37. Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed in terms of the judgment dated 28.07.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 594/2022, titled Dolly Sharma v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, with the following directions: a) The condition incorporated in the seniority list issued in 2022, insofar as it excludes the applicants’ technical qualifications from consideration for promotion merely because the same were acquired before appointment without prior departmental permission, is quashed and set aside to that extent.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 17 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

b) The respondents shall recognize the Electrician Trade qualifications possessed by applicant No. 1, Bablu Sharma, and applicant No. 2, Amit Sharma, as valid technical qualifications for determining their eligibility for promotion under the applicable recruitment rules, subject to verification of their certificates and fulfilment of the prescribed educational requirements. c) The respondents shall place the cases of both applicants before the competent Departmental Promotion Committee or other competent authority for promotion against the appropriate posts in the Electrical Cadre, including Junior Electrician/D.G. Operator, as permissible under the applicable recruitment rules. d) While examining their cases, the respondents shall take into account their seniority, length of service, suitability, service record, availability of vacancies in the promotional quota and other prescribed conditions. However, their claims shall not be rejected merely because their Electrician Trade qualifications were acquired before entering government service without prior departmental permission.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 18 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

e) The respondents shall also examine whether any employee junior to the applicants or similarly situated has already been promoted against the relevant promotional quota. If the applicants are found otherwise eligible and entitled to promotion from an earlier date under the applicable rules, they shall be granted appropriate notional benefits, including fixation of seniority and pay, from the date on which their immediate junior or similarly situated employee was promoted. Actual monetary benefits shall be payable from the date they actually assume duties on the promotional post. f) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. A reasoned and speaking order shall thereafter be communicated to both applicants.

38. It is clarified that this Tribunal has not directed automatic promotion of the applicants. The directions are intended to ensure that their technical qualifications are duly recognized and that their cases are examined fairly under the applicable recruitment rules, without

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 19 :: O.A. No. 719/2022

imposing an unsupported restriction relating to the date of acquisition of their qualifications.

39. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Original Application stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

/harshit /

HARSHIT YADAV