Commendations and cash rewards do not create an enforceable right to out-of-turn promotion.

The applicant, a police constable enrolled in the Jammu and Kashmir Police on 2 December 1994, served in various police and CID establishments, including militancy-affected areas.

He claimed that his intelligence inputs and assistance contributed to anti-militancy operations in 1997, 2003 and 2006, for which he received commendation certificates, appreciation and cash rewards.

Relying on the policies governing out-of-turn promotion, particularly Government Order No. Home-559(P) of 2007, he sought consideration for such promotion.

The respondents acknowledged his intelligence-related contributions and rewards but stated that he had never been recommended for out-of-turn promotion; the recommendations in his favour were only for encouragement or cash rewards.

The applicant submitted representations in 2019, but, receiving no relief, instituted the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the applicant had an enforceable right to claim out-of-turn promotion merely on the basis of commendations, appreciation letters and cash rewards for anti-militancy-related work.

Whether the respondents could be directed to consider or grant out-of-turn promotion in the absence of a recommendation by the competent authority under the applicable policy.

Whether the applicant’s belated representations, made in 2019 concerning incidents dating from 1997, 2003 and 2006, could create an enforceable claim for out-of-turn promotion.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as the jurisdictional basis for the Original Application.

It considered Circular No. 14-GR of 1990, Government Order No. Home-3(P) of 2000 and Government Order No. Home-559(P) of 2007, under which out-of-turn promotion is an exceptional incentive—not a matter of right or ordinary career advancement—for genuine and deserving police personnel displaying consistently exceptional performance on the anti-militancy front.

The applicable procedure requires consideration of a competent-authority recommendation supported by the prescribed dossier/citation, service record, APR resume, vigilance clearance and assessment of deviation from seniority.

Mere appreciation, commendation or cash rewards do not automatically confer a right to out-of-turn promotion, and the Tribunal cannot substitute its assessment for that of the competent authority.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had received recognition for certain acts and that his intelligence inputs were acknowledged by the respondents; however, the record showed no recommendation by the competent authority proposing him for out-of-turn promotion.

The recommendations relied upon by the applicant were confined to suitable encouragement or cash rewards, and therefore did not satisfy the policy requirement for consideration for exceptional promotion.

Since out-of-turn promotion is an exceptional and discretionary benefit, the applicant could not convert commendations or rewards into a vested right to promotion.

Further, the principal incidents relied upon occurred in 1997, 2003 and 2006, whereas the applicant asserted his claim only through representations made in 2019; in the absence of any contemporaneous promotion recommendation, the delay did not establish an enforceable entitlement.

The Tribunal therefore found no arbitrariness or illegality warranting judicial interference.

It held that he had neither been recommended for out-of-turn promotion nor established any vested or enforceable right to such promotion.

Commendation certificates, appreciation and cash rewards, without a competent-authority recommendation under the governing policy, were insufficient to justify a direction for promotion or reconsideration.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.