Seniority alone does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion; promotions must adhere to statutory reservation rules and vacancies.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.2674/2012 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.87/2025 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that in view of the submissions made above and those to be urged at the time of hearing,Your Lordships may kindly please to issue a writ or order in the nature of:-

a) Certiorari for quashing the University order No.164(EST) dated 28/08/2012 to the extent.

b) Writ of Mandamus directing the Official Respondent to promote the Petitioner as Accountant as per the seniority from dated.28- 08- 2012 i.e. is the date from which the Respondent No.5 was promoted.

c) Or issue any other appropriate Writ, command, direction or Order which the Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -

a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 2674/2012, which was originally filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and, upon transfer, has been registered as TA No. 87/2025 before this Tribunal. The applicant seeks quashing of University Order No. 164 (EST) dated 28.08.2012 to the extent it promotes the private respondent (Respondent No.5) to the post of Accountant, and further seeks a direction for his own promotion to the said post from the same date, i.e., 28.08.2012.

b) The applicant is a citizen of India and a permanent resident of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. He was selected for appointment to the post of Accounts Assistant under the ALC category pursuant to University Notification No. AUJ/J/ADM/03-04/6362/63 dated 09.10.2003, wherein his name figured at Serial No. 10 of the select list. Subsequently, vide University Order No. 180 (ESTB) of 2003 dated 07.11.2003, he was appointed as Accounts Assistant (Trainee) on temporary basis and placed at Serial No. 8 of the appointment list, as two candidates higher in merit did not join. The said order specifically provided that inter se seniority of the candidates would be maintained in the same order in which their names appeared.

c) Thereafter, vide order dated 25.01.2005, the applicant was shown at Serial No. 6 of the seniority list on account of non- joining of further candidates. The University issued a tentative seniority list of Accounts Assistants vide order dated 22.09.2006, wherein the applicant was shown at Serial No. 6, whereas Respondent No.5 was placed much below at Serial No. 12. Again, vide tentative seniority list issued on 10.08.2009, the applicant continued to figure at Serial No. 6, whereas Respondent No.5 was shown at Serial No. 11. The applicant asserts that after resignation of one more candidate, the said seniority list effectively attained finality.

d) It is further pleaded that Respondent No.5, who admittedly joined later and was junior to the applicant, was selected under the RBA category vide University Order dated 21.05.2004. As per Schedule-II, Chapter-III (Accounts Cadre) of the SKUAST Statutes , promotion to the post of Accountant is 100% by promotion from Accounts Assistants having requisite experience. The applicant claims to have fulfilled all eligibility conditions well before the private respondent.

e) However, vide impugned University Order No. 164 dated 28.08.2012, Respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Accountant, ignoring the seniority of the applicant. The applicant contends that the said action is arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the statutory