Seniority in one discipline confers no right to challenge promotions within distinct, stream-specific feeder categories.

The applicants, employees of the Institute of Music and Fine Arts, Jammu, were transferred from the J&K Academy of Art, Culture and Languages to the University of Jammu in 2011

Under Government Order No. 7-Cull of 2011, their service conditions and promotional avenues were to remain protected

The applicants, belonging to the disciplines of Applied Arts, Violin, Tabla, and Vocal, challenged the retrospective confirmation of Respondent No. 6 in TA 144/2024 (Sunil Raina, Sitar stream) and Respondent No. 6 in TA 137/2024 (Priya Dutta, Dance stream) to the posts of Senior Instructor

The applicants alleged that despite being senior in a tentative 2010 seniority list, they were ignored while juniors were granted retrospective benefits

Additionally, they filed a contempt petition (TA 145/2024) alleging non-compliance with a High Court interim order to consider their cases for promotion

The respondents contended that promotions are stream-specific and the applicants had no locus standi to challenge promotions in disciplines (Sitar and Dance) to which they did not belong

1. Whether the applicants possess a legally enforceable right to challenge promotions made in specific streams/disciplines (Sitar and Dance) different from their own

2. Whether a common tentative seniority list entitles employees to promotion across different feeder categories/streams

3. Whether the respondents committed wilful disobedience of the court’s interim directions regarding promotional consideration

The court primarily applied the J&K Academy of Art, Culture and Languages Service Recruitment Rules, 2007, which govern the promotional framework of the Institute staff

It relied on established Supreme Court precedents holding that the "fixation of quotas or different avenues and ladders for promotion" is the exclusive prerogative of the employer based on the department's structure

the court applied the principle that "chances of promotion are not conditions of service" and that cadre strength alone cannot justify parity in promotional claims across distinct feeder categories

The Tribunal observed that while the applicants were generally senior in the establishment, they belonged to distinct disciplines such as Applied Arts and Violin, whereas the impugned promotions were in the Sitar and Dance streams

The Tribunal reasoned that unless the recruitment rules specifically provide for a common interchangeable pool, seniority has relevance only within the prescribed field of consideration for a specific post

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any statutory provision allowing cross-stream promotions

Regarding the allegations of record tampering against Sunil Raina, the Tribunal held that such factual disputes could not be adjudicated when the applicants lacked the initial locus standi (feeder-category entitlement) to claim the post

the Tribunal determined that sympathy for the applicants' stagnation could not override the legal requirement of belonging to the correct feeder stream

TA No. 145/2024 (Contempt) was closed as the main claims were meritless and no wilful disobedience was established

The Tribunal clarified that the dismissal does not preclude the respondents from considering the applicants for promotion within their own respective streams in accordance with the rules

No costs were ordered