Indefinite in-charge arrangements cannot substitute regular promotions or confer preferential promotional rights.

The applicants were Veterinary Assistant Surgeons and members of the Jammu and Kashmir Animal Husbandry Gazetted Service. They relied on the final seniority list issued under Government Order No. 117-ASH of 2020 and claimed seniority over several private respondents. They alleged that, instead of making regular promotions through the prescribed DPC/PSC process, the department had continued temporary, in-charge and look-after arrangements in the promotional hierarchy of Livestock Development Officer, Deputy Director/Chief Animal Husbandry Officer and Joint Director.

By Government Order No. 72-ASH of 2021 dated 29 April 2021, Respondents 2–5 were directed to look after the work of Joint Director/equivalent posts, while Respondents 6–29 were entrusted with the work of Deputy Director/Chief Animal Husbandry Officer and equivalent posts. The applicants challenged the order on the grounds of bypassing senior officers, indefinite continuation of temporary arrangements, and alleged irregular application of reservation.

The respondents contended that the applicants lacked the requisite qualifying experience under the Jammu and Kashmir Animal Husbandry (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988, whereas several private respondents had acquired the prescribed experience in lower promotional posts. They further asserted that the impugned arrangements were purely temporary, did not confer any substantive or preferential right, and were made to ensure administrative continuity.

The respondents also stated that proposals concerning regularisation and promotion had been referred to the PSC/DPC and that some officers had already been regularised.

Whether the continued use of in-charge/look-after arrangements against promotional posts, without completing the statutory DPC/PSC process, was legally sustainable

Whether the applicants could be excluded from consideration for higher posts merely because they had not previously received temporary placement or lacked experience derived from such placement

Whether the applicable reservation roster could be operated selectively by leaving Open Merit/Unreserved points vacant while filling subsequent reserved points

What directions should be issued regarding determination of vacancies, finalisation of seniority and substantive promotions

The Tribunal applied the Jammu and Kashmir Animal Husbandry (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988, which prescribe the promotional hierarchy, qualifying service and eligibility conditions for advancement to Livestock Development Officer/equivalent, Deputy Director/Chief Animal Husbandry Officer/equivalent and Joint Director/equivalent posts.

It relied upon the statutory requirement that promotional vacancies be placed before the competent DPC/PSC for substantive promotion, including the framework referred to in SRO 166 dated 14 June 2005.

The Tribunal held that an in-charge or look-after arrangement is only an administrative, temporary device and cannot substitute for regular promotion or create a vested or preferential right.

It further held that temporary service cannot automatically become the basis of qualifying experience for successive temporary placements, particularly to the prejudice of senior eligible officers.

Reservation must be implemented through the applicable unified/running roster; Open Merit/Unreserved points must be treated as open to all eligible officers and cannot be bypassed in favour of subsequent reserved roster points.

The Tribunal found that the central dispute was not merely the temporary eligibility of individual officers, but the department’s prolonged failure to fill promotional vacancies through the statutory mechanism.

Since the respondents themselves admitted that the impugned order was temporary and conferred no substantive or preferential right, the arrangements could not be allowed to continue indefinitely in place of regular promotions.

The applicants’ seniority in the feeder cadre did not, by itself, entitle them to promotion; however, their cases could not be excluded merely because junior officers had earlier received temporary assignments. Eligibility, qualifying service, seniority and suitability had to be determined by the competent DPC/PSC under the Recruitment Rules.

The Tribunal also rejected the possibility that temporary placement could generate qualifying experience for a further temporary placement and thereby create a self-perpetuating advantage.

On reservation, it declined to decide the broader constitutional validity or extent of reservation in promotion, but directed that the legally applicable roster be operated continuously and that unfilled Open Merit/Unreserved points not be bypassed.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to determine the year-wise and category-wise vacancies in all relevant promotional cadres, prepare and operate the applicable unified/running reservation roster, and place the complete vacancy position before the competent DPC/PSC.

The applicants were to be considered along with all other eligible officers in accordance with seniority, qualifying service and the Recruitment Rules, without exclusion merely because junior officers had earlier received look-after or in-charge assignments.

Time spent in such temporary arrangements would not create any vested or preferential right unless legally recognisable under the applicable rules.

The entire exercise, including convening of the DPC/PSC and issuance of consequential promotion orders, was directed to be completed within four months of receipt of the certified order.

Existing temporary arrangements could continue only as an administrative necessity and would automatically yield to regular appointments.

Government Order No. 72-ASH of 2021 was held incapable of conferring any right to substantive promotion, seniority or preferential consideration.

No order as to costs was made.