2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9166

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, ACJ
Poonam Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through its Commissioner/Secretary Social Welfare Department – Respondent
OA 1110/2024|TA 240/2020|OA 876/2020

State recruitment rules govern promotions and cadre management; central ICDS guidelines are advisory and cannot override statutory state rules; promotion is not a fundamental right but delays may warrant retrospective benefits; cadre restructuring and post-creation are executive functions to be exercised through established rules and DPC processes; stop-gap arrangements cannot substitute regular promotions beyond nine months.

Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu & Kashmir - Jurisdiction to adjudicate service disputes of UTs under G.S.R. 267 (E) read with G.S.R. 317 (E); Original Applications transferred from High Court; final seniority/list disputes in Social Welfare Department (ICDS cadre) under Subordinate and Gazetted rules. Quote: “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” (Paras 1, 2, 3). References: Constitution provisions on service and posts; recruitment rules; 1986 guidelines; 1986-2024 administrative decisions; CAT directions (O.A. 728/2022) and SOs (2024). Quote: “The power to create or abolish posts is the sole prerogative of the Government. Courts cannot usurp that role.” (Para 24(d)); “Promotion is not a fundamental right, though a legitimate expectation for consideration can arise.” (Para 15); “Guidelines of 1986 are advisory, not binding on States/UTs; State rules prevail.” (Paras 19, 31, 46-52); “Administrative instructions or guidelines do not have the force of law and cannot override statutory rules.” (Para 48). Key legal framework includes: Article 14, Article 16, Article 162, Article 309, and Article 47 (as cited in context of nutrition and welfare mandates) along with Rule 14, Regulation 85 and SROs 335/774/553, 2007/2009 Recruitment Rules; CAT and Supreme Court authorities cited for promotion, delay, and notional seniority. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19, 24, 28-36, 39-45, 46-56). Facts and contentions: petitioners challenge final seniority list (05.09.2024) of TSWOs/ACDPOs and seek: cadre restructuring, 75% CDPO promotion quota for Supervisors, prohibitions on certain promotions, and in-situ/cadre reform. Quote: “The petitioners are direct recruits to the post of Supervisors under the ICDS in the Social Welfare Department, and have been rendering their services... for over 15 years” (Para 8a); “Section-C of Schedule-II defines two posts: Assistant CDPO (ACDPO) and Supervisor” (Para 9i); “The next promotional post after ACDPO is that of CDPO, a gazetted post governed by the JK Social Welfare (Gazetted) Service Rules, 2007” (Para 9m). Issues framed: (a) stagnation violating Articles 14 & 16; (b) power to create/add posts or restructure cadre; (c) binding nature of 1986 guidelines; (d) whether courts can compel amendments to laws/rules (Para 14). Findings and ratio decidendi: Court holds executive cadre policy is primarily for the Government; 1986 guidelines are not binding; state rules govern appointments; ICDS guidelines cannot override State recruitment rules; stop-gap arrangements cannot count as promotions and must not be continued beyond nine months; promotions must be through DPC as per Rule 14; delays in promotions attributable to authorities may warrant retrospective/notional promotion where employee is otherwise eligible (Paras 24, 31-37, 39-45, 46-53). Conclusion: No interference with Government’s cadre decisions; prayer for cadre restructuring is rejected; CAT direction to using existing rules and DPC; Government to notify new rules for Supervisors’ promotions; compliance within 12 weeks; no cost awarded (Paras 53-60). Final

Result: “these petitions are found to be devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. Any interim stay order, if in force, stands vacated.” (Para 58-60). Parties: Petitioners (ICDS Supervisors, Anjum Ganai-type applicants) vs UT Administration (Social Welfare Department, ICDS, General Administration, and Union of India as funding/mandating body). Dissent: none recorded; majority decision with directions (Paras 46-60). Paragraph references: Key principles discussed in Paras 15, 17, 19, 21-25, 31-37, 39-45, 46-60.