Continuous "own pay and grade" arrangements cannot bypass statutory promotion quotas for eligible feeder category employees.

The applicants were initially engaged as Gardeners on a daily wage basis between 1981 and 1983 in the Floriculture Department and were regularized on 01.04.1994

Applicant No. 2 was later adjusted as a Junior Assistant on an "own pay and grade" basis in 2014

Despite decades of service, the applicants claimed they were denied functional promotions although they met the educational qualifications (Matriculation) under the J&K Floriculture (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2004

The department referred the Junior Assistant posts for direct recruitment via Advertisement Notice No. 01/2018, which the applicants challenged, arguing that promotional quota posts were being diverted to direct recruitment

The respondents contended that only one promotional post existed (already filled) and that Administrative Department had declined relaxation of the Secretariat Assistant Course requirement for the applicants

1. Whether the respondents were justified in denying the applicants consideration for promotion/regularization to the post of Junior Assistant while simultaneously filling posts through direct recruitment

2. Whether the requirement of passing the Secretariat Assistants Course could be waived for applicants who had crossed 50 years of age under SRO 272 of 2008

The court primarily applied the Jammu and Kashmir Floriculture (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2004, which mandates a quota of 75% for direct recruitment and 25% for promotion

It further relied on SRO 272 dated 19.09.2008, which exempts employees who have crossed the age of 50 years from qualifying for the Secretariat Assistant Course for the purpose of promotion

The court also invoked the administrative principle that "own pay and grade" or incharge arrangements cannot be used indefinitely to substitute for lawful decisions on substantive claims

The Tribunal reasoned that while an incharge arrangement does not create an automatic right to promotion, the department cannot extract work on a higher post while indefinitely postponing the legal decision on the employee's substantive claim

Regarding Applicant No. 2, the court found that once he crossed the age of 50, the departmental objection regarding the Secretariat Assistants Course ceased to be valid under SRO 272

The Tribunal noted that the respondents failed to re-examine the case through this lens of age exemption

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the respondents were bound to identify and preserve the promotional quota; diverting promotional vacancies to direct recruitment by administrative action is unsustainable as it defeats the rights of eligible feeder category employees

The respondents were directed to examine the cases of Applicant Nos. 1 and 3 against available promotional vacancies based on their seniority and eligibility. All consequential service benefits (seniority and pay fixation) are to be granted on a notional basis from the due date, with monetary benefits from the date of actual entitlement. The exercise must be completed within three months