Fabrication of appointment records and lack of a multi-post cadre preclude promotion under SRO 28 of 1996.

The respondent was initially engaged as a Driver in the State AIDS Control Cell via order dated 31.08.1994 on a "stop-gap basis".

In 1998, the State AIDS Prevention & Control Society ("Society") was registered, and the respondent’s services were transferred there in 1999.

To facilitate his adjustment, the government transferred one post from the Directorate of Health Services to the Society in 2007.

The respondent subsequently claimed promotion to "Chauffeur" based on SRO 28 of 1996, asserting he was a substantive employee since 1994 or 2007.

When the Society attempted to repatriate him to the Health Department in 2024, he challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The CAT allowed his claims, directing his promotion to Chauffeur with back wages.

The UT challenged this, alleging the respondent submitted a forged 1994 appointment order in his first petition to suggest substantive rather than ad hoc entry.

1. Whether the respondent was ever appointed as a Driver in a substantive capacity or if his ad hoc services were legally regularized.

2. Whether the respondent is an employee of the Directorate of Health Services or the AIDS Control Society.

3. Whether the respondent is entitled to the time-bound promotion/upgradation benefits envisaged under SRO 28 dated 25.01.1996.

The Court applied the principle of equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, which requires a petitioner to approach the court with "clean hands".

Regarding service law, the Court applied SRO 28 of 1996 (J&K Civil Services Revised Pay Rules), stipulating that the redesignation of Drivers to "Driver Grade-I" and "Chauffeur" is based on a percentage (30% and 20% respectively) of the *total sanctioned strength* of the cadre.

The Court also relied on the principle that substantive appointments must be made through a selection process in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Court found that the respondent's initial entry was purely ad hoc and made at the "desire" of a Secretary rather than through a constitutional selection process.

Crucially, the Court observed that the respondent had presented a forged version of his 1994 appointment order in his initial OA to hide the "stop-gap" nature of his employment, which should have disqualified him from relief.

Regarding SRO 28 of 1996, the Court reasoned that the benefit of percentage-based promotion is inapplicable to an "isolated cadre" consisting of only one post, as the Society did not have a multi-tier cadre strength to support the 30%/20% conversion formula.

While the 2007 order was meant for adjustment, the Court noted that since the Society treated him as substantive for years, it could not be reversed now, but he was not entitled to further "wrongful benefits".

The respondent was never substantively appointed/regularized via due process.

He is an employee of the Society (not the Health Department) due to the 2007 post-transfer, and thus cannot be repatriated.

He is ineligible for SRO 28 benefits due to the isolated nature of his post.

The Court upheld the CAT's direction to allow the petitioners to initiate criminal or departmental proceedings regarding the forged 1994 order.