Authorities must decide the employees’ promotion claim before convening the DPC, without prejudging its merits.

The applicants were long-serving Technician Grade-I employees of Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), appointed under the earlier recruitment framework on the basis of technical/diploma qualifications. They claimed eligibility for promotion to Technologist Grade-II under the Recruitment Rules of 1998, as amended in 2014, which allegedly did not prescribe a B.Sc. qualification as an essential requirement for their promotional channel.

The applicants alleged that, despite completing the requisite qualifying service and the availability of vacancies, they were neither regularly nor officiatingly promoted. They relied on the officiating and subsequent regular promotions granted to similarly situated diploma-holding employees, Hakim Imran Showkat and Dar Gulzar Ahmad, as evidence of differential treatment.

Subsequently, S.O. 29 of 2025 dated 23 January 2025 introduced a B.Sc. qualification for promotion to Technologist Grade-II. The applicants apprehended that they would be excluded from the forthcoming Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), although they had acquired eligibility under the earlier Rules.

A DPC had reportedly recommended one-time relaxation of the qualification, and the Health and Medical Education Department had called for a consolidated proposal; however, the proposal remained pending.

The applicants sought, inter alia, quashing of the amended qualification requirement insofar as it adversely affected existing diploma-holding employees, consideration for promotion under the earlier Rules, or alternatively, grant of one-time relaxation. During the hearing, they agreed that the Original Application could be treated as a representation. The respondents stated that they had no objection to such disposal.

Whether the applicants’ claim for promotion to Technologist Grade-II, based on eligibility allegedly acquired under the earlier Recruitment Rules, required consideration notwithstanding the subsequent introduction of a B.Sc. qualification under S.O. 29 of 2025?

Whether the applicants were entitled to consideration of their request for one-time relaxation of the newly prescribed B.Sc. qualification and to a reasoned decision on the pending relaxation proposal?

Whether the Original Application could be disposed of by treating it as a representation and directing the respondents to decide it within a prescribed period?

The Tribunal referred to the Recruitment Rules of 1998, as amended in 2014, under which the applicants claimed promotional eligibility, and to S.O. 29 of 2025 dated 23 January 2025, which introduced the B.Sc. qualification for promotion to Technologist Grade-II.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law principle that a competent authority must consider a representation in accordance with the applicable rules, relevant documents, eligibility conditions, and the law holding the field, and must issue a comprehensive, reasoned and speaking order.

No statutory precedent or judicial authority was cited, and the Tribunal expressly left all questions of fact and law open.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the applicants’ substantive challenge to S.O. 29 of 2025 or determine whether they were legally entitled to retrospective promotion. Since both parties agreed that the O.A. could be treated as a representation, the Tribunal adopted a limited procedural course.

It directed the respondents to examine the applicants’ assertions, their claim for promotion and/or relaxation, and the documents annexed to the O.A., while applying the governing Recruitment Rules, eligibility requirements and other applicable conditions.

To prevent the applicants’ claim from being rendered ineffective during consideration, the Tribunal directed that the respondents should not proceed to convene the DPC for filling the Technologist Grade-II promotional posts until the matter was considered, subject to there being no legal impediment.

The Tribunal deliberately refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits.

Without deciding the merits, it disposed of O.A. No. 991/2026 by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation and to consider the applicants’ claims, including the request for one-time relaxation and the documents annexed to the O.A., in accordance with law.

The respondents were directed to pass a comprehensive, reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from receipt of the order.

Until such consideration, the respondents were directed not to proceed with convening the DPC for filling the post of Technologist Grade-II by promotion, subject to there being no impediment.

All questions of fact and law were left open, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.