Promotion granted without DPC recommendation or competent authority's approval is void and liable to revocation.

The applicant, originally appointed as a Helper in 1984, was promoted to Assistant Lineman in 2014 and Lineman in 2018.

Vide Order No. 335 of 2020 dated 20.03.2020, he was promoted to the post of Works Supervisor.

A private respondent (Respondent No. 5) challenged the applicant's seniority in a previous O.A., leading the Tribunal to direct the department to reconsider the matter.

Upon review, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 23.12.2023, revoking the applicant’s promotion to Works Supervisor on the grounds that it was issued in violation of standing rules and without the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

The applicant challenged this revocation/demotion, alleging it was done without a hearing and after several years of service.

1. Whether the promotion order dated 20.03.2020 was issued by a competent authority in adherence to the prescribed statutory recruitment rules.

2. Whether the revocation of the promotion via the impugned order dated 23.12.2023 was legally sustainable despite the lapse of time and absence of a prior hearing.

Rule 25 of the J&K Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which mandates that all promotions must be made by the appointing authority through a duly constituted DPC or selection committee.

J&K Public Health Engineering Department (Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules) 1989 (SRO 380), which stipulates the qualifications and 100% promotion quota for the post of Works Supervisor.

The principle that no vested right accrues from a promotion granted illegally or in contravention of statutory rules.

The Tribunal found that while the Chief Engineer was the competent authority to constitute a DPC, the promotion was issued by the Superintending Engineer without any DPC meeting or formal recommendations.

The court noted the respondents' contention that the promotion violated the seniority of other officials, such as Respondent No. 5.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's reliance on precedents regarding "passage of time," emphasizing that the initial promotion lacked legal sanction and was currently under investigation by the Special Director General, Crime, J&K, for administrative irregularities by the then-issuing officer.

The procedural violations rendered the promotion void ab initio, justifying the department's corrective action.

The Tribunal dismissed the O.A., holding that the impugned revocation order dated 23.12.2023 was issued in accordance with law and the applicable service rules.

The dismissal does not preclude the applicant from being considered for future promotion strictly in accordance with rules, seniority, and eligibility.