Employees cannot claim promotion contrary to statutory rules; courts may only direct objective consideration of rule amendments.

The applicants were Class-IV employees of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Protection Force (FPF), serving as Orderlies, Chowkidars and Safaiwalas. They claimed that, although designated as Class-IV employees, they were enrolled members of the FPF under the Jammu and Kashmir Forest (Protection) Force Rules, 2012, performed field and operational duties, and were entitled to a promotional avenue to the post of FPF Guard.

They relied on draft Recruitment Rules which had contemplated a share of the promotional quota for Class-IV employees other than Watchers.

However, the final Jammu and Kashmir State Forest Protection Force (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2017, notified by SRO 422 dated 5 October 2017, restricted promotion to FPF Guard to Watchers and placed Orderlies, Chowkidars and Safaiwalas in the ministerial cadre, with promotional avenues towards Junior Assistant/Driver.

The applicants challenged SRO 422 of 2017, Government Order No. 360-FST of 2012—which downgraded 512 FPF Guard posts for adjustment of Watchers—and promotions granted to certain Watchers as FPF Guards.

The Tribunal heard the OA and transferred writ petition together because they raised substantially identical issues.

Whether Orderlies, Chowkidars and Safaiwalas of the FPF were entitled to be included as a feeding cadre for promotion to the post of FPF Guard, and whether their exclusion under SRO 422 of 2017 was arbitrary or discriminatory.

Whether the draft Recruitment Rules and the departmental communication dated 14 February 2018 created an enforceable right to promotion or required the Tribunal to direct amendment of SRO 422 of 2017.

Whether Government Order No. 360-FST of 2012, downgrading 512 FPF Guard posts for adjustment of Watchers, was liable to be quashed.

Whether the promotions already granted to the private respondents/Watchers as FPF Guards were liable to be set aside.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicants invoked its jurisdiction.

The relevant service framework comprised the Jammu and Kashmir Forest (Protection) Force Rules, 2012, notified by SRO 264, and the Jammu and Kashmir State Forest Protection Force (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 2017, notified by SRO 422.

The Tribunal held that draft Recruitment Rules or departmental recommendations do not create vested or enforceable rights unless accepted and incorporated into statutory rules.

It further applied the principle that determination of cadre structure, classification of posts, and recruitment or promotional channels falls primarily within the executive and rule-making domain, and courts or tribunals should not ordinarily rewrite statutory service rules or substitute their views for those of the competent authority.

It also applied the principle that promotions made under operative rules, in the absence of an interim restraint or declaration of invalidity, should not ordinarily be disturbed.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ reliance on the draft Recruitment Rules could not establish a legal entitlement because the proposal had never become part of the statutory framework.

Although the applicants’ field duties, enrolment status, allowances, length of service and the Department’s recommendation demonstrated that their grievance merited consideration, these factors did not authorise the Tribunal to create a new promotional quota or direct promotion contrary to SRO 422 of 2017.

The Tribunal also declined to invalidate Government Order No. 360-FST of 2012 because it had followed earlier judicial proceedings, consideration by a high-level committee and Cabinet approval; reduction of promotional prospects alone was insufficient to establish invalidity.

The promotions of the private respondents were upheld because they had been made under the then-operative SRO 422 and no interim order had restrained the process.

The applicants could not claim application of SRO 335 of 1991, since the Forest Department and the FPF were governed by separate service rules.

Nevertheless, the Tribunal considered that the applicants’ longstanding grievance and the Department’s own recommendation required an objective governmental examination rather than outright rejection.

The Tribunal declined to quash SRO 422 of 2017, declined to interfere with Government Order No. 360-FST of 2012, and directed that the promotions already granted to the private respondents/Watchers as FPF Guards remain undisturbed.

However, the competent Government authority was directed to undertake a fresh and objective consideration of whether an appropriate promotional avenue in the Executive Cadre, including a possible share in the promotional quota for FPF Guard, should be provided to Orderlies, Chowkidars and Safaiwalas.

The authority was required to consider the relevant service rules, the applicants’ asserted enrolled-member status, actual duties, allowances, length of service, existing promotional hierarchy and administrative requirements, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the certified order.

The direction did not mandate amendment of the rules or confer an automatic right to promotion.

No order was made as to costs.