Accrued promotional rights cannot be defeated by the retrospective application of subsequent executive instructions.

The applicants were serving as Teachers in the School Education Department of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir

In TA 703/2021, the applicants were promoted to the 'Master Grade' via an order dated 11.02.2014

However, their actual adjustment and posting were withheld pending a vigilance inquiry into the genuineness of degrees obtained through distance/correspondence modes

Subsequently, the government issued Government Order No. 66-Edu of 2017, requiring distance-mode degree holders to pass a written test before their promotions could be finalized

In TA 7339/2021, the applicants challenged the J&K Reservation Act, 2004, and the promotion orders issued between 2011 and 2013, alleging that reservation in promotions violated the principles laid down in Indira Sawhney and resulted in the supersession of senior general category candidates

1. Whether Government Order No. 66-Edu of 2017 could be applied retrospectively to withhold the adjustment of teachers promoted in 2014

2. Whether the selective adjustment of regular degree holders while deferring distance-mode degree holders constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

3. Whether a challenge to promotion orders and reservation rules issued several years prior is maintainable or barred by delay and laches

Principle that vacancies must be filled according to the rules in force at the time they occur, as established in Y.V. Rangaiah vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983)

Rules affecting service conditions cannot be applied retrospectively to divest accrued rights, as held in P. Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka (1990)

Under Article 14 and 16, similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently regarding promotional benefits, per State of Karnataka vs. C. Lalitha (2006)

The "settled seniority" rule dictates that stale claims in service matters should not be entertained to avoid administrative chaos, per P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1975) and B.S. Bajwa vs. State of Punjab (1998)

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants in TA 703/2021 had acquired a substantive service right upon their promotion in 2014, which could not be retroactively defeated by the 2017 executive order requiring a written test

The court found that the Department’s decision to adjust regular degree holders while denying the same to the applicants—despite the applicants being senior or similarly situated—constituted arbitrary discrimination

While the Tribunal acknowledged the employer's right to verify the genuineness of qualifications, it held that such verification could not be a ground for indefinite withholding of postings

Regarding TA 7339/2021, the Tribunal observed that the challenged promotions occurred between 2011 and 2013. Intervening at this late stage would unsettle long-standing service positions and administrative certainty, especially since the applicants themselves had been promoted in 2014

It directed the respondents to adjust the applicants as Masters with notional seniority and pay fixation from the date their juniors were adjusted, though monetary benefits are to be released prospectively. The challenge to the J&K Reservation Act and earlier promotion orders was rejected on the grounds of delay, laches, and the principle of settled seniority. Compliance was ordered within three months

The respondents were granted the liberty to verify individual academic qualifications and take action if any are found fraudulent