CAT Directs J&K To Decide 35 School Employees’ Representation For Head Assistant Promotions Within Six Weeks

Thirty-five applicants, serving in the respondents’ department, challenged communications dated 24 January 2026 and 10 September 2026 concerning a proposed one-time relaxation relevant to their eligibility for promotion to Head Assistant.

They claimed to have completed the required substantive service as Senior Assistants and to have qualified in the Secretariat Assistants Examination in 2023.

They also relied on an earlier General Administration Department clarification.

At the hearing, their counsel stated that the applicants would be satisfied if the OA were treated as a representation and decided by the respondents.

Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, permits a joint application where applicants have a common cause of action and seek identical reliefs; the Tribunal allowed the applicants to proceed jointly on that basis.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, while expressly leaving the merits undecided.

No substantive service-rule issue was determined.

Because the applicants shared a cause of action and sought identical reliefs, the Tribunal allowed the joint application.

Given the applicants’ request at the hearing, it disposed of the OA by directing the respondents to treat it as their representation and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order, having regard to Annexure A/4 and subject to the applicants’ entitlement and the absence of any legal impediment.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from expressing any view on the merits.

The respondents were directed to treat the OA as the applicants’ representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order, subject to the stated qualifications.

No opinion was expressed on the merits, and no order as to costs was made.