Administrative Authority must reasonably consider representations from in-service employees adversely affected by retrospective removal of promotional quotas.

The applicants, employees of the Agriculture Production Department (some appointed as Mali, others on compassionate grounds), acquired B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture degrees from SKUAST-Jammu during their service

They acted under the then-prevailing JK Agriculture (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2004 (SRO 02 of 2004), which reserved a 5% promotion quota for in-service Agriculture Graduates to the post of Junior Agriculture Extension Officer

In 2017, the Government notified new rules via SRO 442, which repealed the 2004 Rules and abolished the 5% quota, thereby removing the applicants' expected promotional channel

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of SRO 442 and sought a mandamus for promotion under the old rules

The respondents argued that rules are framed based on administrative exigency and no vested right exists to a specific quota

1. Whether the applicants have a vested right to be promoted under the repealed 5% quota of SRO 02 of 2004 after the enactment of SRO 442 of 2017

2. Whether the principle of legitimate expectation entitles the applicants to a transitional or one-time relief because they acquired qualifications based on the earlier rules

The framing and amendment of recruitment rules and the prescription of quotas fall within the exclusive domain of the rule-making authority

A Court or Tribunal cannot ordinarily direct the Government to frame rules in a specific manner or continue a beneficial rule unless the change is palpably arbitrary

The doctrine of "Legitimate Expectation" does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion or compel action contrary to statute, but requires the executive to act fairly and objectively when a subsequent change in rules causes hardship to a specific class who acted upon earlier representations

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Government has the power to amend rules prospectively for administrative exigencies, it must account for fairness

The applicants were not mere aspirants but in-service employees who pursued professional degrees with departmental permission specifically to avail the 5% quota

The Tribunal noted that the Directorate of Agriculture itself had recognized this hardship by forwarding a proposal to the Secretary for a suitable amendment or relief, indicating the grievance was meritorious of examination

While the Tribunal refused to strike down SRO 442 of 2017 as unconstitutional (affirming that it cannot "sit in appeal over the wisdom of the rule-making authority"), it held that the principle of fairness necessitates a reasoned consideration of whether a transitional or one-time measure could protect those who completed their degrees between 2004 and 2017

The Tribunal disposed of the application by directing the applicants to submit a comprehensive representation within four weeks and directed the competent authority to examine the claim and decide within three months whether any transitional, protective, or one-time benefit or rule relaxation is permissible under law to address the applicants' grievance.