Respondents must consider promotion claims and issue a reasoned order without granting automatic promotion.

The applicants, employees working as Lineman-II/Executive Staff in the Kashmir Power Development Corporation Limited, claimed to have rendered more than two decades of service but lacked an effective promotional avenue.

They challenged the absence of promotional consideration for Matriculate/non-ITI employees and relied upon a tentative and final seniority-list exercise concerning Executive Staff (Lineman-II) in the Anantnag/Kulgam District Cadre.

The applicants referred to a departmental order dated 18 October 2018, by which twenty Matriculate Executive Staff members were temporarily promoted/placed as Meter Readers against available vacancies pursuant to Government Order No. 18-PDD dated 23 January 2015.

They contended that similarly situated employees had previously been considered for promotion against the relevant quota and vacancies, but their own cases were not acted upon despite representations and assurances.

They further relied on a communication dated 27 December 2025 proposing that 5–10% of promotional posts be reserved for Matriculate or higher-qualified, non-ITI employees, and on subsequent representations and departmental communications referring to vacancies in the posts of Tech-III and Meter Reader.

After hearing the matter, the applicants limited their prayer and requested that the Original Application be treated as a representation and that the respondents be directed to consider their claims in accordance with law.

The respondents did not oppose disposal with appropriate directions.

1. Whether the Original Application should be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation and consider the applicants’ claims concerning promotional avenues for Matriculate/non-ITI Lineman-II employees?

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct promotion or creation of a promotional quota for the applicants?

The Tribunal applied the principle that an employee has no fundamental or automatic right to promotion, but an eligible employee has a right to fair and lawful consideration for promotion in accordance with the applicable service rules.

It further applied the principle that promotional claims must be examined with reference to the governing rules, eligibility conditions, seniority, qualifications, experience, service record and availability of vacancies.

The Tribunal also held that it could not direct the creation of a promotional quota contrary to the applicable statutory or service framework, and that the competent authority must independently decide the matter in accordance with law.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ grievance involved disputed questions concerning their seniority, qualifications, past departmental practice, the 2018 promotions, the proposed 5–10% quota, and the availability of promotional vacancies.

Since the applicants themselves restricted their relief to consideration of their claims as a representation, and the respondents consented to appropriate disposal, the Tribunal found that adjudication on the merits was unnecessary.

Applying the principle that promotion cannot be ordered dehors the applicable rules, but that a claim for lawful consideration may be examined by the competent authority, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the Original Application, accompanying documents and departmental communications through a reasoned decision.

The respondents were directed to treat it as a representation and consider the applicants’ claims and supporting documents strictly under the applicable rules, regulations and law.

A detailed, reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order and communicated to the applicants thereafter.

The Tribunal clarified that the order did not direct promotion, require creation of a promotional quota, or confer any right to promotion contrary to the governing service framework.

All questions of fact and law were left open for decision by the competent authority, with no order as to costs.