Regular promotion must follow service-rule eligibility; in-charge placement alone does not fix its effective date.

The applicants, Physical Education Teachers, obtained permission from the Director, Youth Services and Sports to pursue BPE courses.

After acquiring the qualifications, they were placed as Incharge Physical Education Masters on 21 October 2011 and 5 June 2012, respectively.

Their placements were withdrawn by communications dated 28 April 2022, following a departmental review which questioned the authority to grant permission and the related leave and attendance arrangements.

The applicants challenged the withdrawal and sought regularization from their respective incharge-promotion dates, with consequential benefits.

They relied on a prior decision of the Tribunal in Jatinder Singh & Others v. UT of J&K & Others, O.A. No. 552/2022, concerning the same departmental action.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in withdrawing the applicants’ incharge placements after approximately eleven years, given that they had pursued higher studies on permission granted by the Director.

2. Whether the applicants were entitled to regular promotion from the dates of their incharge placements, or only from the dates on which they became eligible and entitled under the applicable rules.

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to challenge the administrative action.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and non-arbitrariness, holding that employees who acted on departmental permission could not be made to suffer for administrative irregularities for which they were not responsible; similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive consistent treatment.

Relying on Jatinder Singh & Others v. UT of J&K & Others, O.A. No. 552/2022, decided 4 February 2026, the Tribunal treated the materially identical reversion action as arbitrary and contrary to natural justice.

It also affirmed that an incharge placement does not, by itself, confer an automatic right to regular promotion: regular promotion depends on eligibility, seniority, vacancies, and the applicable service rules.

The applicants had sought permission through the departmental channel, relied on permission granted by the Director, and then served as Incharge Physical Education Masters for several years.

The respondents identified no material distinction between their cases and the employees covered by Jatinder Singh, nor a sufficient basis to depart from that decision.

In light of the prolonged service and the absence of a proper opportunity of hearing, the Tribunal found the withdrawal unsustainable.

However, because incharge service does not automatically establish entitlement to regular promotion from its commencement, the Tribunal directed the respondents to determine each applicant’s promotion date by applying the governing rules and considering eligibility, seniority, vacancies, and the treatment of similarly situated employees.

It directed restoration of their incharge status and regularization from the dates on which they became entitled to promotion under the applicable rules—not automatically from 5 June 2012 or 21 October 2011.

Consequential service benefits, including seniority, pay fixation and admissible arrears, were ordered from the dates regular promotion became due; the exercise was to be completed within twelve weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

No order as to costs was made.