Reserved promotional vacancies cannot be de-reserved without prescribed procedure and competent-authority approval.

The applicant, appointed as a Junior Assistant under the Scheduled Caste category, was promoted to Senior Assistant and later placed in-charge as Head Assistant on 17 June 2020.

Following restructuring that created three Section Officer posts, he claimed that one post was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category and that the respondents unlawfully de-reserved it before regularizing respondent No. 7 as Section Officer by Order No. 670 dated 23 June 2021.

The respondents maintained that the applicant was not eligible because the recruitment rules required three years’ qualifying service as Head Assistant, and that the reserved post had been de-reserved because no eligible Scheduled Caste employee was available.

The applicant sought, among other relief, quashing of the regularization order and the relevant reservation circular, and promotion against the reserved vacancy.

Whether the respondents lawfully de-reserved the Section Officer post earmarked for the Scheduled Caste category and filled it through respondent No. 7.

Whether the applicant was entitled to promotion against that reserved vacancy, having regard to the applicable eligibility requirements and reservation rules.

Article 16(4A) of the Constitution enables reservation in promotion, with consequential seniority, for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes where they are inadequately represented; the Tribunal also referred to the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 and the rules framed under it as governing reservation in promotion.

A reserved promotional vacancy must be dealt with in accordance with the applicable reservation law, and administrative instructions cannot override statutory provisions.

De-reservation requires proof that the roster was properly maintained, reserved-category eligibility was examined, and the competent authority lawfully approved the decision; a bare assertion that no eligible candidate was available is insufficient.

Reservation does not ordinarily remove the requirement to satisfy prescribed qualifications and qualifying service, subject to any lawful relaxation.

The Tribunal relied on Satish Chander v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Others, O.A. No. 169/2023, decided 17 December 2024, concerning Circular No. 10-JK(GAD) of 2021.

The Tribunal relied on Mohd Jamal Sheikh & Another v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Others, WP(C) No. 336/2023, decided 6 March 2025, on the post-2019 constitutional position.

The Tribunal relied on Rajeev Thappa & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Others, O.A. No. 1171/2020, decided 30 May 2025, on promotion, eligibility, and the effect of administrative instructions.

The respondents admitted that the Scheduled Caste post had been de-reserved but did not establish that the roster, candidate eligibility, and competent-authority approval requirements had been satisfied.

The Tribunal therefore held that the respondents’ explanation alone could not validate the de-reservation.

However, the applicant’s in-charge placement as Head Assistant did not itself establish eligibility for promotion: his claim had to be assessed under the applicable recruitment rules, including the three-year qualifying-service requirement and any lawful relaxation.

His possible ineligibility at a particular time did not independently validate the de-reservation, so the Tribunal directed a separate determination of his eligibility while protecting the roster entitlement.

It declined to disturb respondent No. 7’s position automatically, noting the absence of any established personal misconduct or misrepresentation.

It set aside the decision to de-reserve the Scheduled Caste post insofar as the respondents had not established compliance with the prescribed procedure and competent-authority approval, and directed them to restore the roster entitlement and assess the applicant’s eligibility under the applicable rules, including any lawful relaxation.

If eligible, the applicant is to receive promotion from the date he became eligible and a vacancy was lawfully available, with consequential service benefits; if the disputed post is occupied, his entitlement may be protected by adjustment against an available Section Officer post, subject to cadre and reservation rules and without unnecessarily disturbing respondent No. 7.

The respondents may not reject his claim merely by relying on Circular No. 10-JK(GAD) of 2021 or the instructions dated 21 June 2016, and must complete the exercise within three months.

The order does not dispense with mandatory eligibility requirements or automatically disturb respondent No. 7’s promotion.