Authorities must decide promotion claims through a reasoned order within six weeks, subject to eligibility and applicable rules.

The six applicants were appointed as Junior Engineers (Electrical) in the Power Development Department in 2009 and, following reorganisation, their services were allocated to the Union Territory of Ladakh.

They claimed that, under the applicable Engineering Service Rules, diploma-holder Junior Engineers were eligible for promotion to Assistant Engineer against the prescribed promotional quota.

The applicants asserted that several senior and similarly situated Junior Engineers had already been placed as In-Charge Assistant Engineers, while they remained stagnated despite more than seventeen years of service and the availability of vacancies, including posts earlier earmarked for direct recruitment whose recruitment process was subsequently recalled.

Relying on Clause 7(4)(ii) of S.O. 109 dated 20 March 2020, the applicants contended that promotional quota vacancies were required to be filled from amongst existing eligible employees in accordance with the applicable rules.

They submitted a representation dated 13 August 2026 seeking consideration of their cases for placement or promotion as Assistant Engineers, but no decision was communicated.

In the Original Application, they sought promotion or placement, filling of the available promotional vacancies, and a direction for disposal of their representation.

During hearing, the applicants agreed that the O.A. could be treated as a representation, and the respondents expressed no objection to such disposal.

Whether the applicants’ claim for placement or promotion as Assistant Engineers against available or arising vacancies was required to be considered under the applicable service rules and Clause 7(4)(ii) of S.O. 109 dated 20 March 2020?

Whether the Original Application could be treated as a representation and the respondents directed to consider and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed time?

The Tribunal applied the applicable Engineering Service Rules governing promotion of diploma-holder Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineer and Clause 7(4)(ii) of S.O. 109 dated 20 March 2020, which requires promotional quota vacancies to be filled from amongst existing employees in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.

The Tribunal further applied the administrative law requirement that a competent authority must consider a duly raised service grievance and pass a comprehensive, reasoned and speaking order, subject to the claimant’s eligibility, entitlement, applicable conditions, and the governing service rules.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the applicants’ substantive entitlement to promotion.

Since both parties agreed that the O.A. could be treated as a representation, the Tribunal confined its intervention to directing administrative consideration of the applicants’ claims.

The asserted seniority, length of service, eligibility, availability of vacancies, and reliance on Clause 7(4)(ii) were therefore required to be examined by the respondents in light of the applicable rules, regulations, and supporting documents.

The direction was expressly made without expressing any opinion on the merits and subject to the applicants’ entitlement, eligibility, other applicable conditions, and the existence of any legal impediment.

The respondents were directed to consider the assertions and documents contained in the O.A. in light of the applicable law, service rules, regulations, and Clause 7(4)(ii) of S.O. 109 dated 20 March 2020, and to pass a comprehensive, reasoned, speaking and detailed order within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal granted no direct promotion or placement and expressed no opinion on the merits.

The connected miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with parties left to bear their own costs; M.A. No. 1147/2026 seeking joint application was allowed.