The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has made it clear that officers cannot claim seniority from vacancies that arose in previous years. Instead, only the actual date of promotion will be considered when determining an officer’s rank in the service hierarchy.

Read also: J&K High Court Denies Bail to Srinagar Hotelier Accused of Sheltering Foreign Terrorists and Providing SIM Cards

“The selected candidate cannot have any plea of retrospective promotion from the date on which the slots/vacancies were available... it is the discretion of the Government to fill up the vacancies occurred in any preceding or earlier calendar year.” — Sr. AAG Mohsin Qadri

• The court dealt with a seniority dispute among JKAS officers from 1992 and 1999 batches.
• It upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) ruling that confirmed the 2011 seniority list.
• Rule 15(4) of the JKAS Rules, 2008 and its proviso were struck down for being illegal.

Read also: J&K High Court Dismisses PIL Against Adhyatmik Vishva Vidyalaya for Lack of Evidence of Illegal Activities

Background of the Case

• Officers from 1992 and 1999 batches of JKAS filed writ petitions after their promotions were delayed from 2004–2007 to 2008.
• They claimed loss of seniority and career progression because they were not promoted earlier even though vacancies were available.
• They challenged the 2011 seniority list and argued that Rule 15(4) of the 2008 Rules allowed them to claim seniority from when the posts were vacant.

Tribunal's Ruling and the Court's Stand:

• The CAT, Jammu Bench, dismissed the petitions and termed Rule 15(4) and its Proviso (i) as illegal.
• It stated that the 1979 Rules, under which promotions were given, did not allow backdated seniority.
• The High Court bench, consisting of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Dhar, upheld this view.

Read also: PSC Has No Locus To Defend Selection Process When Candidate Did Not Challenge CAT’s Decision: J&K High Court

“...as the petitioners were appointed/inducted into Time Scale posts of JKAS under the Rules of 1979, they were required to be governed by the Rules of 1979 only.” — High Court Judgment

Arguments by Petitioners:

• Senior advocates like Z.A. Shah, M.Y. Bhat, and R.A. Jan argued that Rule 15(4) was introduced to correct historic delays in promotions.
• Officers from the 1992 batch highlighted they were serving in in-charge positions like SDMs from 2004 and hence deserved seniority from then.
• They also pointed out that officers from other feeder services who got promoted earlier received better pensions and benefits.

State’s Counterarguments:

• Represented by Sr. AAG Mohsin Qadri, the state defended the CAT's decision.
• The government held that retrospective promotions are not allowed under the 1979 Rules, and the 2008 Rule 15(4) was legally flawed.
• This rule was finally removed in 2021, recognizing its legal contradictions.

Court’s Legal Reasoning:

• The Court cited the case of V. Vincent Velankanni v. Union of India (2024) and emphasized:

“A subsequent rule cannot retrospectively alter vested rights unless expressly permitted.”

• It further cited Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. (2011) and State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma (2007) to support its stand:

“Seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of vacancy occurrence unless expressly provided in the rules.”

Key Legal Observations:

• The 1979 Rules do not permit retrospective seniority.
• The officers could not rely on Rule 23 of the J&K Civil Services Rules, 1956, as no select list was prepared at that time.
• The argument of discrimination against 1992 batch officers was also rejected.
• The Court referred to State of J&K v. Javed Iqbal Balwan, where the same issue was already settled by the Supreme Court.

“It is not an absolutely mandatory requirement of the regulation that a select list must be prepared every year... if for some good reasons such a select list was not prepared every year, that by itself would not invalidate the list for that year.” — High Court citing Vijay Singh Charak v. Union of India (2007)

• The High Court dismissed all writ petitions.
• It found no legal errors in the CAT’s decision.
• The Court ruled that actual promotion date remains the only valid basis for seniority, and vacancies from previous years cannot be used to claim retrospective seniority.

“For all what has been said and discussed above, there is no merit in these writ petitions, as such, the same are dismissed, however, no order as to costs.” — Final Order

Case Title: UT Of J&K Vs Ghulam Nabi Itoo & Ors