Authorities must decide the representation and complete substantive appointment proceedings within four weeks, strictly according to law.

The applicant was initially appointed against a migrant vacancy in 1997 and his services were regularised in 2007.

By Order No. 652-DISM of 2019 dated 24 December 2019, the Director, Indian System of Medicine, J&K, directed him to work at the ISM Dispensary, H. Chawal Gam, Kulgam, and additionally to function temporarily as Incharge Nodal Officer, Kulgam, until proper arrangements were made by the Administrative Department.

The applicant sought regular appointment/promotion as District Ayush Officer, Kulgam, continuation in the post, grant of the corresponding pay scale and arrears from 24 December 2019, and interim protection of his status.

The respondents stated that, by Government Order No. 530-JK (HME) of 2026 dated 6 July 2026, nine posts of District Ayush Officers in Pay Level 11 had been created, including for District Kulgam, and that the process for making the requisite administrative arrangement was underway.

Whether the applicant was entitled to continue as Incharge District Nodal Officer/District Ayush Officer, Kulgam, until a substantive appointment or other proper arrangement was made.

Whether the respondents were required to fill the newly created post of District Ayush Officer, Kulgam, through a regular and substantive process in accordance with the applicable rules.

Whether the applicant’s pending representation was required to be considered and decided by the competent authority.

The Tribunal recognised that the competent authority may make a temporary or stop-gap arrangement in an exigency of service where substantive filling of a post may require time, subject to the applicable statute and rules.

It considered the principle cited from Mohammad Ayub v. State of J&K, 2018 (Legal Eagle) (JK) 12342, that a person holding a higher post on an in-charge basis should not ordinarily be replaced by another employee on an in-charge basis without cogent reasons.

However, the Tribunal also treated the substantive appointment to the newly created post as a matter governed by Government Order No. 530-JK (HME) of 2026 and the applicable statutory framework.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s assignment was expressly temporary and had been made by the Director in an exigency of service, while the respondents had subsequently initiated the process for filling the newly created District Ayush Officer posts.

Since the substantive post had been created only through Government Order No. 530-JK (HME) of 2026, the applicant could not claim automatic regularisation or permanent entitlement merely on the basis of his earlier in-charge arrangement.

At the same time, his pending representation and claim for consideration could not be ignored.

The Tribunal therefore declined to grant the substantive reliefs directly and instead required the respondents to decide the representation and complete the regular appointment process in accordance with law, while directing that the applicant’s eligibility and consideration-zone status be taken into account if applicable.

The respondents were directed to decide the applicant’s pending representation within four weeks and to complete, within the same period, the process of filling the post of District Ayush Officer, including the post for Kulgam, on a substantive basis under Government Order No. 530-JK (HME) of 2026 and in accordance with the applicable law and rules.

If the applicant fell within the zone of consideration, his case was to be considered strictly in accordance with law.