Roopesh Kumar Sharma vs RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT on 15 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) allow the instant Original Application; b) direct the respondent no. 1 & 2 to promote the ap plicant as Panchayat Inspector Grade-II notionally w.e.f. 1.04.2014 and substantively w.e.f. 16.05.2020; c) direct the respondents to promote the applicant as Panchayat Inspector Grade-I w.e.f. 01.12.2018; d) direct the respondents no. 1 to promote the applicant as Block Development officer w.e.f 24.02.2022; e) direct the respondent no. 1 & 2 to fix the seniority of the applicant as Panchayat Inspector Grade-III w.e.f. 01.04.2014 over and above the names of respondent no. 3 to 5;

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

f) direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicant as Panchayat Inspector Grade-I w.e.f. 01.12.2018 over and above private respondent no. 3; g) direct the respondents to fix the salary of the applicant in the pay grade attached to the post of PI Grade-II w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and thereafter to release the arrears of the aforesaid pay scale w.e.f. 16.05.2020; h) direct the respondents to give all the benefits, as were granted to respondent no. 3 on account of his promotion as Panchayat Inspector grade-II notionally w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and regularly w.e.f. 16.05.2020 and on account of promotion of respondent no. 3 as Panchayat Inspector grade-I w.e.f. 01.12.2018 and on account of promotion of respondent no. 3 as Incharge Block Development Officer w.e.f. 24.02.2022; Or In the alternative to quash the promotion of respondents no. 3 to 5 as Panchayat Inspector grade-II granted to respondent no. 3 notionally w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and on regular basis w.e.f.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

16.05.2020, promotion granted to respondent no. 4 to 5 as Panchayat Inspector grade-II w.e.f. 01.12.2020 by quashing order No. 168DRD of 2020 dated 16.05.2020 and order No. 21- DRD of 2021 dated 09.01.2021, by quashing the promotion of respondent no. 3 as Panchayat Inspector grade-I w.e.f. 01.12.2018 and also by quashing the promotion of respondent no. 3 as incharge block Development Officer order vide order no. 35-RD and PR of 2022 dated 24.02.2022; i) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondents;

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: - a) The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking directions to the respondents to grant him promotion as Panchayat Inspector Grade-II notionally with effect from 01.04.2014 and on a regular basis with effect from 16.05.2020,

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

Panchayat Inspector Grade-I with effect from 01.12.2018 and Block Development Officer with effect from 24.02.2022. He has also sought fixation of his seniority above private respondents Nos. 3 to 5, along with consequential service and monetary benefits. In the alternative, he has challenged the promotions granted to the private respondents on the ground that they were junior to him and were promoted without considering his rightful claim. b) The case of the applicant is that he, along with private respondents Nos. 3 to 5, was selected for appointment as Village Level Worker (VLW), District Cadre Doda, by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board in the year 2001. According to the applicant, he secured the highest marks in the selection process and was placed at Serial No. 1 in the select list. Pursuant to the selection, the applicant and the private respondents were appointed as Village Level Workers vide Order No. 104-DRD of 2001 dated 29.03.2001. c) The applicant submits that at the time of his initial appointment, he possessed the qualifications of B.Sc. and LL.B. During his

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

service, he decided to pursue higher studies and submitted an application through the proper channel seeking permission to undertake the Master’s Degree course in Rural Development from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). According to him, the Department informed him that a separate No Objection Certificate was not required as the course was being pursued through distance education. He thereafter successfully completed his Master of Arts in Rural Development in the year 2011. d) The applicant further submits that in the tentative seniority list of Village Level Workers of District Cadre Doda issued in the year 2003, his name figured at Serial No. 112, whereas private respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were placed at Serial Nos. 114, 119 and 120 respectively. Subsequently, when the final seniority list of Village Level Workers of Jammu Division was issued on 23.12.2017, the applicant was again shown senior to the private respondents. His name figured at Serial No. 319, while private respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were placed at Serial Nos. 321, 326 and 327 respectively. He, therefore, claims that his seniority over

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

the private respondents has remained consistent since their initial appointment. e) The applicant states that the service conditions of Village Level Workers and their promotion to higher posts are governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Rural Development (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2007, notified vide SRO 178 dated 09.05.2007. Under these Rules, the post of Panchayat Inspector Grade-II is required to be filled entirely by promotion from the prescribed feeder category, subject to five years of experience in that category. The promotional quota is divided into three categories, namely 75% from the general seniority of Village Level Workers/Multi-Purpose Workers, 20% from Graduate Village Level Workers/Multi-Purpose Workers and 5% from those possessing a Post-Graduate Diploma in Rural Development from a recognized University or Board. f) According to the applicant, he had completed five years of service as Village Level Worker on 29.03.2006 and had also acquired a postgraduate qualification in Rural Development in the year 2011. He claims that three vacancies of Panchayat

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

Inspector Grade-II were available under the 5% quota meant for employees possessing the prescribed postgraduate qualification. Being senior to private respondents Nos. 3 to 5, he expected that his case would be considered for promotion against one of these vacancies. g) However, the applicant came to know that respondent No. 3 had been promoted as Panchayat Inspector Grade-II vide Order No. 168-DRD of 2020 dated 16.05.2020, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which met on 20.02.2020. The promotion was granted notionally with effect from 01.04.2014 and on a regular basis with effect from 16.05.2020. Thereafter, private respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were also promoted as Panchayat Inspector Grade- II under the 5% quota vide Order No. 21-DRD of 2021 dated 09.01.2021, on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 24.11.2020. Their promotions were granted notionally with effect from 01.12.2020 and regularly with effect from 09.01.2021.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

h) The applicant alleges that these promotions were granted in disregard of his seniority and without considering his eligibility. He submits that although he was senior to all three private respondents and possessed a postgraduate degree in Rural Development, his case was completely ignored. Feeling aggrieved, he submitted a representation to the Director, Rural Development Department, Jammu, which was forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner (Development), Kishtwar, vide communication No. ACDK/5972-73 dated 29.01.2021. He also submitted further representations, but no relief was granted to him. i) The applicant further states that when he approached the Department to ascertain the reasons for his exclusion, he was informed that the promotions had been granted in view of the judgment dated 27.06.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in SWP No. 2090/2015 titled Mohammad Saleem Darzi and Another Vs. State of J&K and Others. According to the interpretation adopted by the Department, an employee who acquired the prescribed

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

postgraduate qualification earlier would receive preference for promotion over an employee who acquired such qualification later, even if the latter was otherwise senior in service. j) The applicant submits that he challenged the aforesaid judgment by filing LPA No. 22/2022 before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court. Vide interim order dated 17.02.2022, the Division Bench directed that the judgment dated 27.06.2018 would not be given effect to qua the applicant, subject to objections from the other side and until the next date of hearing. The applicant contends that once the operation of the said judgment was restrained in relation to him, the Department could not continue to deny him consideration for promotion solely on the basis of that judgment. k) It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 was subsequently shown as having been promoted to Panchayat Inspector Grade-I with effect from 01.12.2018, as reflected in the tentative seniority list issued vide Order No. 405-DRD of 2021 dated 23.08.2021. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 was also placed as Incharge Block Development Officer vide Government Order

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

No. 35-RD&PR of 2022 dated 24.02.2022. The applicant claims that he has suffered continuous prejudice because an employee junior to him has advanced to higher posts while his own claim has remained unattended. l) The applicant has also relied upon Rule 25 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, relating to promotion and seniority. According to him, once he fulfilled the prescribed service requirements and possessed the relevant educational qualification, his seniority could not have been ignored without valid reasons. He contends that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the applicable service rules. m) The applicant, therefore, seeks promotion to the post of Panchayat Inspector Grade-II notionally with effect from 01.04.2014 and regularly with effect from 16.05.2020, followed by promotion as Panchayat Inspector Grade-I with effect from 01.12.2018 and Block Development Officer with effect from 24.02.2022, together with appropriate seniority, pay fixation and consequential benefits. Alternatively, he seeks quashing of

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

the promotions granted to private respondents Nos. 3 to 5 through the impugned orders.

3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: - a) On merits, the official respondents have submitted that the promotions in the Rural Development Department are governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Rural Development (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2007. Under these Rules, the post of Panchayat Inspector Grade-II is filled entirely by promotion from the prescribed feeder category, with 75% of the vacancies earmarked for general seniority, 20% for Graduate Village Level Workers/Multi-Purpose Workers and 5% for those possessing a Post-Graduate Diploma in Rural Development from a recognized University or Board. They maintain that the Department has followed these Rules in letter and spirit. b) The official respondents further submit that the Rural Development Department, vide communication No. RD/Legal/152/2014 dated 07.03.2019, issued instructions

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

regarding the consideration of employees for promotion in the light of the judgment dated 27.06.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 2090/2015, titled Mohammad Saleem Darzi and Another Vs. State of J&K and Others. As per these instructions, employees who acquired the prescribed Degree or Post-Graduate Diploma after obtaining proper permission from the competent authority were to be considered for promotion with reference to the year in which they acquired the qualification. c) It is the specific stand of the official respondents that private respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 acquired their Post-Graduate Diploma in Rural Development in the years 2000, 2004 and 2006 respectively, whereas the applicant acquired his Master of Arts in Rural Development only in the year 2011. Therefore, according to them, the private respondents became eligible for consideration under the relevant postgraduate category earlier than the applicant. Their promotions were accordingly granted on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and in accordance with the departmental

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

instructions issued pursuant to the aforesaid High Court judgment. d) The official respondents have further submitted that respondent No. 3 was promoted as Panchayat Inspector Grade-II vide order dated 16.05.2020, notionally with effect from 01.04.2014 and regularly with effect from 16.05.2020. Similarly, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were promoted as Panchayat Inspector Grade-II vide order dated 09.01.2021, notionally with effect from 01.12.2020. Respondent No. 3 was also promoted as Panchayat Inspector Grade-I with effect from 01.12.2018, as reflected in the order dated 23.08.2021. The respondents submit that the consequential seniority was required to be fixed in accordance with these promotions. e) With regard to the interim order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 22/2022, the official respondents have submitted that the said order is a matter of record. They have, however, pointed out that the promotions of the private respondents had already been granted before the passing of the interim order. They maintain that the promotions were made in

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 16 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

accordance with the Recruitment Rules and the instructions then applicable. f) The official respondents have, therefore, denied that the applicant has been subjected to any unlawful discrimination or that his statutory rights have been violated. They submit that the private respondents were considered for promotion on the basis of the dates on which they acquired their prescribed qualifications and that the applicant cannot claim promotion merely on the strength of his earlier position in the general seniority list. They accordingly pray for dismissal of the Original Application. g) Private respondents Nos. 3 and 5 have also filed their counter- affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant. They submit that the applicant is not eligible for promotion under the 5% quota earmarked for Village Level Workers possessing a Post- Graduate Diploma in Rural Development. According to them, the Recruitment Rules specifically prescribe a Post-Graduate Diploma in Rural Development, whereas the applicant possesses a Master of Arts degree in Rural Development. They

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 17 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

contend that these are different qualifications and that possession of a Master’s Degree cannot automatically be treated as equivalent to the prescribed Post-Graduate Diploma. h) The private respondents further submit that the applicant pursued his Master’s Degree without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. They have referred to the communication dated 22.02.2007 and contended that the Directorate of Rural Development was not competent to grant a No Objection Certificate for pursuing higher studies, as such permission was required to be obtained from the Government. According to them, the Directorate was competent only to sanction leave, subject to the necessary permission being granted by the competent authority. They submit that the applicant cannot rely upon a qualification acquired without the required permission for claiming promotional benefits. i) The private respondents have further contended that the applicant has incorrectly interpreted the eligibility requirement of five years’ service. According to them, a Village Level Worker initially enters service in the pre-revised pay scale of

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 18 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

Rs. 3050-4910 and is placed in the higher grade of Rs. 4000- 6000 after completing eight years of service. Thereafter, five years’ experience in the prescribed grade is required for promotion as Panchayat Inspector Grade-II. On this basis, they submit that the applicant’s claim of having acquired the necessary experience merely upon completion of five years of service on 29.03.2006 is incorrect. j) It is further submitted that the promotions of private respondents Nos. 3 and 5 were granted strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and on the recommendations of a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee. They have relied upon the judgment dated 27.06.2018 passed in SWP No. 2090/2015, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that, for promotion under the relevant postgraduate category, the date of acquisition of the prescribed qualification was material. According to them, an employee who acquired the qualification earlier was entitled to preference over an employee who acquired it later.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 19 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

k) The private respondents submit that they had acquired the prescribed Post-Graduate Diploma in Rural Development much earlier than the applicant acquired his Master’s Degree. They maintain that respondent No. 3 was promoted as Panchayat Inspector Grade-II notionally with effect from 01.04.2014 and regularly with effect from 16.05.2020, whereas respondent No. 5 was promoted under the same quota pursuant to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. They contend that these promotions were lawful and do not call for interference. l) The private respondents have also argued that the applicant cannot challenge the promotions of eligible employees when he himself does not possess the qualification specifically prescribed for promotion under the 5% quota. They submit that the applicant may claim promotion under the 75% general seniority quota or the 20% graduate quota, subject to fulfillment of the relevant eligibility conditions, but he cannot insist upon promotion against vacancies reserved for employees possessing a Post-Graduate Diploma in Rural Development.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 20 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

m) With regard to the interim order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 22/2022, the private respondents submit that the mere passing of an interim order restraining the operation of the Single Judge judgment qua the applicant does not establish his eligibility for promotion. They contend that even independently of the said judgment, the applicant is not entitled to promotion under the 5% quota because he does not possess the prescribed educational qualification. n) The private respondents have further submitted that respondent No. 3 was subsequently promoted as Panchayat Inspector Grade-I with effect from 01.12.2018 and thereafter placed as Incharge Block Development Officer. According to them, the applicant, who continues to hold the post of Village Level Worker, cannot claim direct promotion to successive higher posts without first satisfying the eligibility requirements for each promotional post. They contend that the applicant is effectively seeking three successive promotions through a single Original Application, which is not permissible merely on the basis of his seniority in the initial cadre.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 21 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

o) The private respondents have accordingly submitted that the applicant has failed to establish any legal right to the relief claimed. They maintain that the promotions granted to them were made in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. They, therefore, pray that the Original Application be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.

5. The dispute in the present case concerns the applicant’s claim for promotion as Panchayat Inspector Grade-II and thereafter to higher posts on the ground that employees junior to him have been promoted while his own claim has remained unattended.

6. There is no serious dispute regarding the applicant’s initial appointment in the year 2001 or his placement above private respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in the seniority lists referred to in the Original Application. The applicant was placed at Serial No. 319 in the final

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 22 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

seniority list dated 23.12.2017, whereas private respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were placed at Serial Nos. 321, 326 and 327 respectively.

7. However, the fact that an employee is senior in the feeder cadre does not, by itself, establish an automatic right to promotion. Promotion must be governed by the Recruitment Rules applicable to the post concerned. Seniority is undoubtedly an important consideration wherever the Rules provide for it, but the prescribed qualifications, experience and other eligibility conditions must also be fulfilled.

8. In the present case, the Jammu and Kashmir Rural Development (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2007, provide three separate channels for promotion to the post of Panchayat Inspector Grade-II. These are 75% from general seniority, 20% from graduate employees and 5% from employees possessing a Post-Graduate Diploma in Rural Development from a recognized University or Board.

9. The applicant possesses B.Sc. and LL.B. qualifications and subsequently acquired an M.A. in Rural Development from IGNOU in the year 2011. His grievance is that despite these qualifications and

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 23 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

his seniority, he was not considered for promotion when the private respondents were promoted.

10. The respondents, on the other hand, have raised a specific objection that the applicant does not possess the Post-Graduate Diploma in Rural Development prescribed for promotion under the 5% quota. They contend that an M.A. degree in Rural Development cannot automatically be treated as equivalent to the prescribed diploma.

11. We find that this objection requires careful examination. Where the Recruitment Rules prescribe a particular educational qualification, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily substitute another qualification merely because it appears to be academically higher. Whether the M.A. in Rural Development is recognized as equivalent to the prescribed Post- Graduate Diploma must be determined with reference to the applicable Rules, any relevant government instructions and decisions of the competent authority.

12. In the absence of material establishing such equivalence, it would not be appropriate for this Tribunal to straightaway direct the promotion of the applicant under the 5% postgraduate quota. At the same time, the objection regarding his qualification does not answer the separate

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 24 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

question of whether he was entitled to consideration under the other promotional categories.

13. The Recruitment Rules themselves provide that 75% of the promotional vacancies are to be filled from the general seniority of eligible Village Level Workers/Multi-Purpose Workers and 20% from graduate employees. The applicant possesses graduate qualifications and claims seniority over the private respondents. Therefore, his eligibility and entitlement to consideration under these categories cannot be overlooked merely because his claim under the 5% postgraduate quota is disputed.

14. The official respondents have explained the circumstances in which private respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were promoted under the 5% quota. However, the pleadings do not clearly establish whether the applicant’s case was separately examined under the 75% general seniority quota or the 20% graduate quota, particularly with reference to the relevant vacancies and Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings.

15. We are of the view that an employee who has served the Department for a considerable period should not be left without a clear decision

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 25 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

regarding his promotional claim. The Department is entitled to apply the Recruitment Rules strictly, but it must also ensure that every eligible employee receives fair consideration in the appropriate category.

16. Fair consideration does not mean that promotion must necessarily follow. It means that the employee’s service record, qualifications, seniority, eligibility and the relevant vacancy position must be examined in accordance with the Rules, and a decision must be taken on proper grounds.

17. The applicant has also relied upon the interim order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in LPA No. 22/2022. By that order, the judgment dated 27.06.2018 in SWP No. 2090/2015 was directed not to be given effect to qua the applicant, subject to objections and until the next date of hearing.

18. The said interim order cannot be understood as a declaration that the applicant is eligible for promotion under the 5% postgraduate quota. Nor can it be treated as a direction to promote him automatically. Its effect is confined to the terms in which it was passed. Moreover, the

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 26 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

promotions of private respondents Nos. 3 to 5 had already been granted before the interim order dated 17.02.2022.

19. The applicant’s claim must be examined in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and the binding judicial orders applicable at the relevant time. Since the final outcome of LPA No. 22/2022 has not been placed before us in the material presently available, we refrain from expressing any opinion on its ultimate effect.

20. Another issue raised by the respondents concerns the applicant’s alleged failure to obtain prior permission before pursuing his Master’s Degree. The applicant claims that he had approached the Department through the proper channel and was informed that a separate No Objection Certificate was not required for a distance education course. The private respondents dispute this assertion.

21. This question also requires examination of the original departmental communications and the instructions applicable at the relevant time. It would not be proper to record a final finding against either party merely on the basis of conflicting assertions. In any event, the applicant’s eligibility under the general seniority quota and graduate

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 27 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

quota must be examined independently of the disputed Master’s Degree, to the extent permitted by the Rules.

22. The applicant has further sought promotion as Panchayat Inspector Grade-I with effect from 01.12.2018 and Block Development Officer with effect from 24.02.2022 on the ground that respondent No. 3, who was junior to him, received these benefits.

23. We find that this claim is dependent upon the applicant first establishing his entitlement to promotion as Panchayat Inspector Grade-II from an appropriate date. Promotion to each successive post is governed by its own eligibility requirements, including the prescribed experience, availability of vacancies and the applicable selection procedure. Merely because a junior employee has reached a higher post does not automatically entitle the applicant to all intervening promotions.

24. Nevertheless, if upon proper examination it is found that the applicant was wrongly overlooked for promotion as Panchayat Inspector Grade- II at the relevant time, the Department would also be required to examine the consequential effect of such omission upon his eligibility for subsequent promotional posts. Such examination must be made

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 28 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

with reference to the relevant Rules and the position existing in the respective vacancy years.

25. We have also considered the alternative prayer of the applicant seeking quashing of the promotions granted to private respondents Nos. 3 to 5. The private respondents were promoted on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committees and have continued in their respective promotional positions. The material presently before us does not establish that their promotions were granted in violation of any specific provision of the Recruitment Rules. The applicant’s claim of seniority, by itself, is not sufficient to invalidate promotions granted under a separate quota governed by prescribed qualifications.

26. We are, therefore, not inclined to disturb the promotions of private respondents Nos. 3 to 5. Their existing service positions shall remain unaffected by the directions issued in the present Original Application.

27. At the same time, we are not persuaded to dismiss the Original Application in its entirety. The applicant’s claim for promotion under the general seniority quota and graduate quota deserves a proper

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 29 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

examination, particularly because the Department has not clearly demonstrated that his case was considered under these categories at the relevant time.

28. In our considered view, the ends of justice would be met by directing the respondents to undertake a proper examination of the applicant’s promotional claim with reference to the applicable Recruitment Rules, his seniority, qualifications, service record and the relevant vacancy position. If he was eligible and was wrongly overlooked, the Department must take appropriate corrective steps rather than merely reject his claim on technical grounds unrelated to the promotional category for which he was eligible.

29. We also make it clear that the applicant cannot be denied his rightful promotional consideration merely because considerable time has passed. Equally, the passage of time cannot be used to confer a promotion for which he did not fulfill the prescribed eligibility conditions. The decision must rest upon the Rules and the facts existing at the relevant time.

30. Thus, having considered the matter in its entirety, we find that the applicant has made out a case for limited interference to secure fair

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 30 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

and lawful examination of his promotional claim, but not for an unconditional direction granting him three successive promotions or for setting aside the promotions of the private respondents.

31. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present Original Application is partly allowed with the following directions: a) Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 shall examine the promotional claim of the applicant for the post of Panchayat Inspector Grade-II under the 75% general seniority quota and the 20% graduate quota, in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Rural Development (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2007, and other applicable rules and instructions. b) For this purpose, the respondents shall examine the applicant’s position in the relevant seniority list, his educational qualifications, length of qualifying service, eligibility in the prescribed feeder grade and the vacancy position pertaining to the relevant years. c) The respondents shall also verify whether the applicant’s case was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committees against the appropriate promotional quota. If it is found that he

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 31 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

was eligible but was wrongly omitted from consideration, his case shall be placed before a Review Departmental Promotion Committee, or other competent authority as required under the applicable Rules, for examination with reference to the relevant vacancy year. d) If the applicant is found entitled to promotion from an earlier date, the respondents shall grant him promotion from the date legally admissible, together with consequential seniority and notional pay fixation. Any claim for actual monetary arrears shall be decided separately in accordance with the applicable rules and the nature of the promotion granted. e) If the applicant is granted promotion as Panchayat Inspector Grade-II from an earlier date, the respondents shall thereafter examine his eligibility for further promotion as Panchayat Inspector Grade-I and subsequently as Block Development Officer, with reference to the applicable Recruitment Rules, qualifying service and relevant vacancies. Any consequential promotion shall be granted only if the applicant is found entitled to the same under the Rules.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 32 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

f) The question whether the applicant’s M.A. in Rural Development can be accepted as equivalent to the Post- Graduate Diploma in Rural Development prescribed for the 5% postgraduate quota shall be examined by the competent authority with reference to the applicable Rules and any valid equivalence decision or government instruction. No equivalence is declared by this Tribunal. g) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondents shall communicate a reasoned decision to the applicant, clearly indicating the promotional category under which his claim has been examined, the relevant eligibility conditions and the result of such examination. h) The promotions already granted to private respondents Nos. 3 to 5 shall not be disturbed merely on account of the directions issued in the present Original Application.

32. It is clarified that the directions issued herein do not confer an automatic right to promotion upon the applicant. They are intended to ensure that his claim is examined fairly and in accordance with the

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 33 :: O.A. No. 992/2022

applicable Recruitment Rules, and that any omission found to have occurred is corrected in the manner permissible under law.

33. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Original Application stands disposed of.

34. There shall be no order as to costs.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

/harshit /

HARSHIT YADAV