Denial of out of turn promotion based on arbitrary criteria violates Articles 14 and 16, emphasizing performance over awards in promotion decisions.

ORDER

(Per: Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member)

1. SWP 1380/2011 has been filed by the petitioners in the Hon’ble High Court and after the reorganization of State of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and in view of the Notification No. G.S.R. 267 (E) dated 29.04.2020 read with notification No. G.S.R. 317 (E) dated 28.05.2020 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the list regarding service disputes of the employees of UT of J&K and Ladakh was conferred upon this Tribunal and while considering the said fact, the record of SWP 1380/2011 was ordered to be transferred by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K to this Tribunal and renumbered as Transferred Application No. TA 6265/2021.

2. The brief of the case in nutshell as per facts mentioned in TA that the petitioner and respondents 4 & 5 were selected as Sub Inspectors in the Police Department and after completion of training respondents were placed after the petitioner in the seniority list. The petitioner and the respondents 4 & 5 were deputed in SOG engaged in counter insurgency operations. The at the petitioner was recommended for out of turn promotion to the of Inspector for extra ordinary courage shown in countering the insurgency in the year 2004 but before the petitioner could be considered for out of turn promotion, the name of respondents were also recommended for out of turn promotion in the year 2006 and they were promoted while the petitioner was arbitrarily recommended only for two increments in lieu of promotion when the contribution of the petitioner was better than the respondents 4 & 5 and his name was recommended before the respondents 4 & 5.

3. Learned counsel for applicant further stated that the petitioner aggrieved of the same, filed a writ petition which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Court directing the official respondents to consider the petitioner for out of turn promotion on the same analogy applied in case of the private respondents but the officials respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for out of turn promotion.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants had approached Hon’ble High Court seeking following reliefs.

i. quashing the Order no 273 of 2010 dated 30.03.2010 passed by respondent no 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion and recommendation dated 06.07.2004 made by respondent no.3 recommending two advance increments in favour of the petitioner instead of out of turn promotion of petitioner;

ii. writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to recommend the petitioner for out of turn promotion and further commanding the respondents 1 & 2 to give out of turn promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his citation giving seniority to the petitioner over the respondents 4 & 5.

5. The facts leading to filing of the aforesaid Transferred Application are summarized as under: -

 That in May 2002, the petitioner was posted in the Commando Group Surankot engaged in Counter Insurgency Operations and within a short span of time the petitioner with his zeal and enthusiasm and devotion to the duty, without caring for his life, achieved great success in controlling the militancy in the area and took part in number of operations against militancy conducted independently by the JKP as also jointly by the JKP and Army in which number of militants were eliminated, apprehended and surrendered and huge quantity of sophisticated arms and ammunition were recovered.

 That the petitioner was awarded PRESIDENT POLICE MEDAL (Gallantry) and SHER-I-KASHMIR MEDAL (Gallantry) for the extra ordinary courage shown by the petitioner for the operations which were independently conducted by the Police at Hari Marhote on 14 06.2003 in which ten terrorists were killed and at Dara Singla on 02 09 2003 in which five militants were killed.

 That a fidayeen attack specifically targeted at the petitioner was att