Dismissal of OA due to prior adjudication on identical issues.

The applicants, Lady Health Visitors (LHV) in the Department of Health Services, sought a direction to implement a proposed amendment to the J&K Health & Family Welfare (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2022 (notified via S.O.334 dated 13.07.2022).

This amendment aimed to reserve the promotional post of Community Health Officer (CHO) exclusively for the Public Health Department (establishment code 2210) and specifically for feeding posts only from the Health Department, excluding the Family Welfare Department (establishment code 2211).

The applicants contended that both Directorates operate under distinct administrative, financial, and recruitment frameworks.

The competent authority had initiated the amendment process following representations and feedback from Directorate of Health Services Kashmir and Jammu.

Despite this, the respondents had contemplated considering employees from the Family Welfare Department for CHO promotions and had sought documents for a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

The applicants also sought to quash Order No.DHSK/NG/Est-5th/PDC/2077-78 dated 10.04.2025 by the Director, Health Services, Kashmir, and an order dated 28.05.2024 by Respondent No.2, and to set aside S.O.334 dated 13.07.2022.

An interim relief was also sought to keep the aforementioned orders in abeyance.

A previous OA, No.433/2025, had put on hold promotion processes for CHO from Family Welfare employees.

The applicants expressed concern that delays would lead to their retirement without availing their right to promotion.

The respondents, while not filing objections, submitted written arguments stating that employees cannot question administrative policies and that recruitment rules fall within the employer's exclusive domain.

They also highlighted that the issues raised were no longer res integra due to a prior decision by the CAT, Jammu Bench.

1. Whether the applicants have a legally enforceable right to seek the implementation of a proposed amendment to recruitment rules for the promotional post of Community Health Officer (CHO) to exclude employees from the Family Welfare Department.

2. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) can interfere with policy decisions regarding the framing, amendment, or interpretation of recruitment rules, feeder cadres, and promotional quotas when such decisions fall within the exclusive domain of the employer or competent authority.

3. Whether the present Original Applications are barred by the principles of judicial discipline, consistency, and issue estoppel given a prior decision by the CAT, Jammu Bench, on similar issues.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle that service jurisprudence does not recognize an employee's right to question the wisdom or suitability of administrative policies.

It also relied on the principle that framing, amendment, interpretation, and implementation of recruitment rules are within the exclusive domain of the employer or competent authority, and courts/tribunals ordinarily refrain from interfering unless the policy is patently unconstitutional or ultra vires.

Furthermore, promotions to public posts are governed strictly by the recruitment rules in force at the relevant time, and the determination of feeder cadres and promotional quotas is a matter of statutory and administrative discretion.

The Tribunal invoked the principles of judicial discipline, consistency, and issue estoppel based on a previous decision by the CAT, Jammu Bench, specifically O.A. No. 1051/2024 titled Kamaljeet Kumar & Ors. vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., decided on 18.11.2025, which held that employees have no vested right to seek inclusion or exclusion of feeder categories for promotion and that such policy decisions are immune from judicial interference unless violative of constitutional or statutory provisions.

The Tribunal reasoned that the core issue in the present OAs—the challenge to recruitment rules and the demand for specific amendments regarding promotional avenues—was identical to the one previously adjudicated by the Division Bench of CAT, Jammu Bench, in Kamaljeet Kumar & Ors. v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (OA No.1051/2024).

That prior decision, rendered on merits, explicitly held that applicants failed to demonstrate any violation of fundamental, statutory, or legal rights by the impugned order or S.O.334 of 2022.

The Jammu Bench had affirmed that determination of feeder categories and sharing of promotion quota are policy decisions of the Government, governed by validly framed rules, and judicial interference is justified only on limited grounds of arbitrariness or unconstitutionality, none of which were established.

Specifically, it concluded that employees have no vested or enforceable right to dictate the inclusion or exclusion of feeder categories for promotion, viewing this as an exclusive domain of the employer.

Given this precedent, the Srinagar Bench found the issues involved in the instant OAs to be the same, and thus, the present applications were deemed to be governed by the same prior ruling.

The argument that the applicants were approaching retirement age and would lose promotional opportunities was dismissed as speculative at that stage by the previous judgment and did not provide grounds to overturn the rules or impugned orders.

The holding was based on the principles of judicial discipline, consistency, and issue estoppel, as the identical issues had already been decided on merits by the Division Bench of CAT, Jammu Bench, in Kamaljeet Kumar & Ors. v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (OA No.1051/2024), where it was held that employees have no vested right to seek particular feeder categories for promotion and that such policy decisions fall within the exclusive domain of the employer.

Consequently, the interim order, if any, was vacated, and MA No.1763/2025 was also disposed of.