Supersession of senior eligible officer for promotion without recorded reasons or hearing violates Articles 14, 16 and natural justice.

ORDER (Oral)

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.):-

1.Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:

a. Quash and set aside the impugned promotion Government Order No. 60-Home of 2026 dated 27.01.2026, to the extent it excludes the applicant.

b. Direct the respondents to consider and promote the applicants to the post of Deputy Director prosecution from the date applicant became eligible in 2024 along with his colleagues, with all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits;

c. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in the attending facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Applicant and against Non-Applicants.

2. The applicant has also sought for an interim relief by virtue of which the applicant has sought for stay of the impugned Govt. Order No. 60-Home of 2026 dated 27.01.2026.

3. What emerges from the pleadings, made in the O.A. is that the applicant, as stated, is a member of the Jammu & Kashmir Prosecution Service, having entered into the service, in the year 1998 as a Prosecuting Officer and was promoted as a Senior Prosecuting Officer in the year 2004 and thereafter as a Chief Prosecuting Officer in December, 2012. It is stated in the O.A. that the applicant, in January, 2024, being the senior-most, was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director Prosecution in terms of the Recruitment Rules. It is also stated in the O.A. that in furtherance of the promotion process, a list of all eligible officers of the J&K Prosecution Service was circulated by the Office of the Director General of Prosecution vide communication dated 08.08.2025, wherein the applicant was figuring at serial no. 1.

4. The applicant is aggrieved of the issuance of the impugned Government Order No. 60-Home of 2024 dated 27.01.2026, by virtue of which sanction has been accorded to the promotion of Chief Prosecuting Officers as Deputy Directors Prosecution in the Prosecution Department, J&K, wherein as many as eighteen (18) Chief Prosecuting Officers have been promoted and who are arrayed as party respondents in the instant O.A.

5. The applicant herein has challenged the impugned order on various grounds as have been urged in the O.A. The grounds as urged are reproduced hereunder:

I. For that, the serious prejudice and injustice has been caused to the applicant, the Govt. is a welfare State under the constitution, the aim and object of the welfare State is to act fairly and according to the rules and regulations, while as in the present case the respondents have acted contrary to the nature of its concept and in violation of constitutional guarantees. On this count the applicant seeks indulgence of this Hon'ble court.

II. For that, the action of the respondents in not promoting the applicant despite eligibility and seniority is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

III. For that the impugned promotion order, though facially innocuous, is stigmatic in effect, inasmuch as the petitioner despite being senior, eligible, and figuring at Serial No. 1 in without any recorded reasons, while his uniors have been promoted. Such unexplained supersession casts an implicit adverse reflection on the petitioner's integrity, merit, or suitability, thereby attaching a civil stigma to his service career.

IV. For that the impugned actions of the respondents, namely: (i) issuance of a solitary transfer order against the petitioner during pendency of O.A. No. 692/2025, (ii) exclusion of the petitioner from promotion despite his seniority and eligibility, and (iii) supersession by promotion of juniors,are stigmatic