Promotion post-bifurcation must follow seniority lists of the employee’s respective allocated Union Territory.

The applicants were appointed as Labour Organizer and Messenger in 2010 and 2009, respectively, within the respondent department.

Following the bifurcation of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the applicants were allocated to the Union Territory (UT) of Ladakh, where separate seniority lists were established.

The applicants claim they are eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant based on their seniority within UT Ladakh.

They challenged the respondents' action of assigning these vacant posts to private respondents belonging to the UT of Jammu & Kashmir, alleging a violation of statutory rules and government circulars.

The applicants sought a direction for their Original Application (OA) to be treated as a formal representation for administrative redressal.

1. Whether the assignment of promotional posts in the UT of Ladakh to employees from the UT of Jammu & Kashmir violates the established seniority and recruitment rules.

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation and decide the matter in a time-bound manner.

The court referred to Government Order No. 1212-JK (GAD) of 2021 (dated 15.11.2021), S.O. 428 (dated 21.12.2021), and Circular No. 09-JK (GAD) of 2022 (dated 08.03.2022), which collectively mandate that employees allocated to the UT of Ladakh be excluded from the seniority and promotion considerations of the UT of Jammu & Kashmir.

The court also noted the principles governing inter se seniority under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (CCA Rules).

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the case on its merits but focused on the limited prayer of the applicants to have their grievance considered administratively.

The court recognized the legal framework established by the circular dated 08.03.2022, which governs the separation of personnel between the two Union Territories.

By directing the respondents to treat the OA as a representation, the court ensured that the executive authority would first evaluate the applicants’ eligibility and the legality of the impugned order (dated 30.03.2026) in light of the applicable recruitment rules and the specific administrative circulars cited.

The respondents are ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law and the circular dated 08.03.2022 within four weeks.

The court further held that the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 shall remain subject to the outcome of this administrative consideration.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.