Discretionary promotions and claims of parity must be determined by administrative authorities via reasoned speaking orders.

The applicant was appointed as a constable in the IRP, 1st BN in 1998

During a period of active militancy in Jammu & Kashmir, he volunteered for and was deputed to the Special Operation Group (SOG) in 1997

The applicant previously filed SWP No. 1269/2002 before the J&K High Court, which was decided on 29-06-2016 with a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for out-of-turn promotion based on government policy

Pursuant to that direction, the respondents issued Order No. 1240 of 2017 dated 15-04-2017, rejecting his claim on the grounds that he did not fulfill mandatory norms

The applicant challenged this rejection, alleging discrimination and mechanical decision-making

The matter was transferred from the High Court to the Central Administrative Tribunal and has been pending for nine years

1. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant's claim for out-of-turn promotion via Order No. 1240 of 2017 was arbitrary or discriminatory

2. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to directly grant promotions that fall within the administrative domain

The Tribunal recognized that the power to grant out-of-turn promotions lies within the domain of administrative authorities and not the courts

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (Right to Equality) do not operate as a "straitjacket formula"; specifically, if an authority has committed a prior illegality or "wrong" in another case, a citizen cannot invoke Article 14 to compel the authority to commit another "wrong" in their favor (negative equality)

The Tribunal observed that the respondents had reviewed the applicant's case and concluded that he did not meet the mandatory norms required for out-of-turn promotion

Regarding the plea of discrimination, the Tribunal noted the respondents' argument that earlier instances of promotion cited by the applicant might have been errors, and the court cannot compel the state to repeat such errors

The Tribunal emphasized that judicial review is limited in administrative matters regarding employee conduct and promotion, as these are best evaluated by the "Administrators at the helm of affairs"

Rather than adjudicating the merits of the promotion itself, the Tribunal determined that a fresh administrative review was appropriate given the long pendency of the case

The respondents are ordered to decide the claim in accordance with law and the petitioner's entitlement by passing a speaking order within six weeks

T.A. 2596/2021 was disposed of accordingly