Authorities must consider the promotion grievance and pass a reasoned order without prejudging its merits.

The applicants were Patwaris in the Jal Shakti (Public Health Engineering) Department, Jammu & Kashmir. They claimed that they had initially been engaged as contractual Patwaris during 2008–2009 and were regularised on 19 January 2017.

Applicants 1–5 and 8–9 were assigned temporary charge of Revenue Clerks on 15 June 2024, while applicants 6–7 were assigned similar charge on 27 March 2025; they continued performing Revenue Clerk duties on an in-charge basis.

The applicants relied on the Department’s longstanding practice of promoting Patwaris having three years’ continuous service to the post of Revenue Clerk under the Draft Recruitment Rules, despite the absence of formally notified Recruitment Rules for that post.

A communication dated 5 September 2026 forwarded the Agenda Note for a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting scheduled for 10 September 2026.

However, by communication dated 9 September 2026, respondent No. 2 directed withdrawal of the proposal concerning the applicants.

During hearing, however, the applicants confined their prayer to treating the Original Application as a representation and directing the respondents to consider their grievance.

Whether the respondents should reconsider the withdrawal of the proposal for the applicants’ regularisation or confirmation as Revenue Clerks, including their claim based on three years’ continuous service, long in-charge service, departmental practice, and the DPC recommendation dated 5 September 2026.

Whether the applicants were entitled to an opportunity to place further material before the competent authority and to a reasoned decision on their claim within a stipulated period.

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the applicants’ substantive entitlement to promotion or regularisation, or dispose of the Original Application by directing administrative consideration of their representation.

The Tribunal referred to the applicable Recruitment Rules, including the Rules notified under SRO 180 of 1997, and the Draft Recruitment Rules relied upon by the applicants, without finally determining their legal applicability or enforceability.

The governing procedural principle applied was that an administrative authority considering a service grievance must examine the relevant material, provide the affected employees an opportunity to submit supporting documents, and pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The Tribunal also applied the settled principle that, where the applicant seeks only administrative reconsideration, the matter may be disposed of by directing the competent authority to consider the representation without expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ grievance involved disputed questions concerning the applicability of the existing Recruitment Rules, the relevance of the Draft Recruitment Rules, the Department’s alleged longstanding promotion practice, their eligibility based on three years’ service, and the treatment of similarly situated employees.

Since the applicants limited their prayer to reconsideration of the withdrawal of the proposal, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to determine their substantive entitlement to promotion or regularisation.

It therefore directed the respondents to examine the applicants’ claim by considering the DPC recommendation dated 5 September 2026, their period of in-charge service, the departmental practice, and the materials relating to similarly situated employees, subject to their eligibility, entitlement, applicable rules, and the absence of any legal impediment.

The applicants were also required to be associated with the process and permitted to submit additional material, ensuring that the final decision was reasoned and procedurally fair.

The respondents were directed to treat the Original Application as a representation and consider the applicants’ grievance regarding withdrawal of the proposal for their regularisation or confirmation as Revenue Clerks, including all grounds and documents relied upon by them.

The applicants were to be given an opportunity to submit further material, and the respondents were directed to pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within three weeks from service of the certified copy of the order.

Until such decision was taken, the respondents were restrained from taking any final decision concerning the applicants’ claim pursuant to the communication dated 9 September 2026.

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