The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, has clarified a critical principle in service jurisprudence: reservation rosters under the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 prevail over seniority claims in promotions, even for posts filled entirely through promotion. This judgment reinforces that statutory reservation requirements cannot be bypassed by senior employees, providing much-needed clarity for public sector employers and employees navigating promotion disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Rakesh Singh, challenged his non-promotion to the post of Accountant in Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST), Jammu. He contended that his seniority as an Accounts Assistant - established through multiple tentative seniority lists - entitled him to promotion over Kulwant Singh Sambyal (Respondent No. 5), who was promoted vide University Order No. 164(EST) dated 28.08.2012. The applicant argued that the promotion was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Procedural History
The case originated as a writ petition (SWP No. 2674/2012) before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, which was later transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and registered as TA No. 87/2025.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought:
- Quashing of the impugned promotion order to the extent it promoted Respondent No. 5
- A writ of mandamus directing his promotion as Accountant from 28.08.2012, the date Respondent No. 5 was promoted
The Legal Issue
The Tribunal had to resolve whether seniority alone confers an indefeasible right to promotion when the reservation roster under the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 and Reservation Rules, 2005 prescribes a different category for the available vacancy.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- Relied on tentative seniority lists (dated 22.09.2006 and 10.08.2009) to assert his seniority over Respondent No. 5.
- Argued that promotion to the post of Accountant was 100% by promotion from Accounts Assistants, making seniority the sole criterion.
- Contended that the impugned promotion was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
For the Respondents
- Asserted that promotions were governed by eligibility, suitability, and availability of vacancies as per the reservation roster.
- Demonstrated that only six vacancies were available, and none were earmarked for the applicant’s ALC category at the relevant time.
- Argued that the seniority list was tentative and could not override statutory reservation requirements.
- Emphasized that Respondent No. 5 was promoted against a roster vacancy for the RBA category, after being found eligible and suitable.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal conducted a meticulous examination of the interplay between seniority and reservation rosters in promotion cases:
-
Seniority Does Not Guarantee Promotion The Court reiterated the settled legal position that seniority alone does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion. Promotion is a composite process governed by statutory rules, including eligibility, suitability, merit, and availability of vacancies as per the reservation roster.
-
Statutory Framework Governing Promotions The Tribunal noted that promotions in SKUAST were governed by:
- SKUAST Statutes
- Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004
- Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 These statutes mandate that vacancies must be filled strictly in accordance with roster points, even for posts filled entirely through promotion.
-
Roster Compliance Is Mandatory The Court observed that at the time of promotion, only six vacancies were available, and none were earmarked for the applicant’s ALC category. Respondent No. 5 was promoted against a vacancy reserved for the RBA category, after being found eligible and suitable by the Promotion Committee. The Tribunal held:
"Seniority, whether tentative or final, cannot override the statutory reservation roster, nor can it be used to claim promotion against a vacancy earmarked for a different reserved category."
-
No Challenge to the Roster The applicant had not challenged the validity of the reservation roster or alleged any mala fide in its operation. In the absence of such a challenge, the Tribunal refused to interfere with a promotion made strictly in accordance with statutory provisions.
-
Constitutional Validity The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that the promotion violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It held that Article 14 does not confer a right to claim parity in contravention of statutory rules, and Article 21 was inapplicable to service matters of this nature.
The Verdict
The Tribunal dismissed the Transfer Application, holding that:
- The applicant’s non-promotion was due to the non-availability of a vacancy for his category at the relevant time.
- The promotion of Respondent No. 5 was lawful, valid, and in conformity with the governing statutes and reservation roster.
- No arbitrariness or procedural infirmity warranted interference by the Tribunal.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reservation Roster Overrides Seniority Claims
Public sector employers must prioritize compliance with reservation rosters over seniority when filling promotional vacancies. Employees cannot claim promotion against a roster point reserved for another category, even if they are senior.
Tentative Seniority Lists Are Not Binding
- Tentative seniority lists do not confer a vested right to promotion.
- Employers retain the discretion to finalize seniority lists, and such lists cannot override statutory reservation requirements.
Burden of Proof in Promotion Disputes
- Employees challenging promotions must demonstrate illegality, mala fide, or manipulation in the application of the reservation roster.
- Mere seniority or reliance on tentative lists is insufficient to establish a claim.
Practical Implications for Employers
- Ensure strict adherence to reservation rosters when making promotions.
- Maintain transparent records of roster points and vacancy allocations to defend against legal challenges.
- Clearly communicate that seniority is not the sole criterion for promotion, especially in reserved categories.
