Cadre restructuring and re-designation of equivalent posts are administrative policy matters immune from judicial review absent manifest arbitrariness.

The applicants were appointed as Range Officers Grade-I in the Wildlife Protection Department in 2012

In 2016, the Government issued Order No. 202-FST, which re-designated the posts of Assistant Wildlife Warden, Research Officer, and Ecologist as Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) (Wildlife). This was part of a restructuring exercise to remove stagnation and provide promotional avenues

The applicants were subsequently promoted to the post of ACF (Wildlife) in September 2017

In March 2018, a tentative seniority list was issued wherein Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (who previously held the posts of Ecologist and Research Officer respectively) were placed senior to the applicants

The applicants challenged the 2016 re-designation order and the 2018 tentative seniority list, arguing that the three posts were distinct in function and should maintain separate seniority lists

1. Whether Government Order No. 202-FST of 2016, re-designating distinct posts into a common cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), is a valid exercise of policy-making

2. Whether the clubbing of Assistant Wildlife Wardens, Research Officers, and Ecologists into a common seniority list violates Rule 24 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956

3. Whether the applicants, who entered the ACF cadre in 2017, have a legal right to claim seniority over respondents who held equivalent higher-grade posts prior to the applicants’ promotion

The Tribunal applied the principle that policy decisions regarding cadre restructuring and re-designation are the prerogative of the executive and are not subject to judicial interference unless shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to statutory rules

It relied on the precedent set in Census Commissioner v. R. Krishnamurthy, which held that courts cannot compel the government to frame policies in a specific manner

Rule 24 of the J&K CCA Rules, 1956, was applied, establishing that seniority is determined by the specific service, class, or category to which an employee is appointed; however, the Tribunal clarified that this follows the cadre structure as defined by the government

The Tribunal reasoned that the 2016 re-designation was a legitimate administrative policy intended to create promotional channels where none effectively existed

The applicants failed to provide any statutory rule prohibiting the merger of these posts into a common cadre

Regarding seniority, the Tribunal found that since the applicants were still in the lower feeder post (Range Officer Grade-I) when the re-designation occurred in 2016, they lacked the locus to challenge the structure of a higher cadre they had not yet entered

Crucially, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were already serving in equivalent posts with the same pay scales and classes long before the applicants were promoted in 2017

Consequently, the applicants' claim for seniority over those already borne on equivalent posts was deemed legally untenable

Finally, the Tribunal noted that a challenge to a "tentative" list is premature as it is intended for administrative objections, not judicial intervention

It held that the applicants had no legal basis to claim seniority over the private respondents who entered the equivalent higher cadre earlier

The challenge to the tentative seniority list was dismissed as premature and lacking merit

No order as to costs was issued