Direction to convene Departmental Promotion Committee and consider eligible candidates for promotion to Lecturer posts.

The nine applicants, currently serving as Masters in the Urdu stream in the Union Territory of Ladakh, alleged deliberate inaction by the respondents regarding their promotion to the post of Lecturer

Despite being eligible and having submitted all requisite documentation—including vigilance clearance, integrity certificates, and Annual Performance Reports (APRs) for the past five years—their cases remained stalled at the level of the Director, School Education, since 2022

The applicants contended that approximately 9 to 11 vacancies exist under the promotion quota

They further argued that while promotions were historically based on subject-wise seniority, the respondents were erroneously deferring the process pending the finalization of a combined seniority list

During proceedings, the applicants limited their prayer to seeking a direction for the respondents to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider the applicants’ eligibility for promotion to the post of Lecturer in the Urdu stream

2. Whether the Director, School Education, is required to forward the relevant service records to the Commissioner/Secretary for a final decision in accordance with the applicable rules

The Tribunal applied the fundamental principles of service law regarding the right of employees to be considered for promotion in a timely manner.

It emphasized the requirement for administrative authorities to act in accordance with established recruitment and promotion rules and regulations

The court maintained that promotion processes must follow the "applicable rules and regulations" and be finalized through "reasoned and speaking orders"

The Tribunal avoided an adjudication on the merits of the seniority dispute (subject-wise vs. combined seniority), focusing instead on the procedural stagnation of the applicants’ promotion cases.

It noted that the applicants had met the documentary requirements and that vacancies were available

Since the respondents, through their counsel, did not oppose the issuance of appropriate directions to resolve the matter, the Tribunal found it fit to compel the administrative machinery to act

The court reasoned that by directing the Director to forward the records and the Commissioner/Secretary to examine the applicants' entitlement, the legal and procedural requirements of the School Education Department would be satisfied without further delay

The Director, School Education, was specifically ordered to forward the relevant records to the office of the Commissioner/Secretary for a decision in accordance with the law

The Tribunal mandated that the respondents pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment

No order as to costs was made