Authorities must consider pending PwBD seniority and promotion claims before finalising the promotional exercise.

The applicant, a person with an assessed permanent locomotor disability of 80%, was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) against a post reserved for Persons with Disabilities pursuant to the judgment in Mohammad Shafi Budoo v. State & Others, SWP No. 2363/1998.

He claimed appropriate fixation of seniority and consequential consideration for promotion, stating that his claim remained unresolved despite repeated representations.

He had also been entrusted with in-charge/look-after arrangements as Assistant Engineer in 2008 and Assistant Executive Engineer in 2013.

The applicant challenged the respondents’ communication dated 1 July 2026, by which a process of promotion/regularisation was initiated or continued, alleging that his seniority, promotional claim, and statutory protections applicable to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities had not been considered.

He also referred to objections submitted on 29 November 2025 against an earlier promotional exercise initiated on 21 November 2025.

During the hearing, however, the applicant confined his prayer to a direction that the Original Application be treated as a representation and that his claims be considered before further finalisation of the promotional exercise.

The respondents agreed to disposal with appropriate directions, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

Whether the applicant’s claims concerning seniority, promotional avenues, and reservation-related protections for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities were required to be examined by the competent authority before finalisation of the promotional exercise initiated by the communication dated 1 July 2026.

Whether the Original Application could be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation and pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law.

Whether the Tribunal should express an opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claims at that stage.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It directed consideration of the applicant’s claims in accordance with the applicable service rules, Recruitment Rules, reservation policy, Government instructions, and the law governing promotion and seniority.

The Tribunal specifically required consideration of the Office Memorandum dated 28 December 2023, the applicant’s representations and objections, and the principles discussed in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind, (2013) 8 SCC 244, and Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 521/2008, decided on 30 June 2016, insofar as applicable.

These authorities were identified for consideration by the competent authority; the Tribunal did not finally determine their application or decide the applicant’s substantive entitlement.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had initially raised substantive grievances regarding seniority, promotion, and disability reservation, but had ultimately limited the relief sought to administrative consideration of those grievances.

Since the respondents did not oppose disposal with appropriate directions, the Tribunal found that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the Original Application pending.

It therefore required the competent authority to examine the Original Application, annexures, representations, objections, relevant Government instructions, and cited judgments, and to decide the applicant’s seniority and promotional claims in accordance with law.

Because the pending promotional exercise could affect those claims, the decision was directed to be taken before its finalisation, insofar as applicable to the applicant’s case.

The Tribunal deliberately refrained from adjudicating the merits and left all questions of fact and law open.

The respondents were directed to treat it as a representation and to examine the applicant’s grievances, claims, documents, representations, objections, and the cited legal authorities in accordance with the applicable rules and law.

The competent authority was directed to complete the exercise before finalisation of the promotional process, insofar as it affected the applicant’s claims, and to issue a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

All questions of fact and law were left open, and no order as to costs was made.