CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)

Hearing through video conferencing Transfer Application No. 7864/2021 Reserved on: - 17.07.2025 Pronounced on: - 11.12.2025 HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)

Susheel Kumar; aged 39 years, S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, R/o Pochhal, Kishtwar.

…Applicant (Advocate: - Mr. Rahul Pant, Ld. Sr. Advocate)

Versus

1. State of Jammu & Kashmir ९ through Commissioner cum Secretary J&K Government, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar

2. Director General, J&K Police, PHQ, Srinagar.

…Respondents (Advocate:- Mr. Hunar Gupta, Ld. DAG)

ORDER Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.3017/2014 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.7864/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

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

a) “Mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Inspector in J&K Armed Police retrospectively w.e.f. the year 2003 at roaster point No. 27/39 as per the roaster point fixed for the promotion of SC category under J&K Reservation Rules, 1994 issued vide SRO 126 of 26-

06-1994 with all consequential benefits.

b) Mandamus commanding the respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Court the list of roaster point promotions made to the post of Inspector in J&K Armed Police w.e.f. 2003 till December, 2005 under the Scheduled Caste category.

c) Any other writ, order, direction or relief this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.

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

a) The petitioner, Susheel Kumar, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the J&K Armed Police in July 1998. His case is that in terms of the Reservation Rules of 1994 and the roster prescribed therein, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector in July 2003 on completion of five years of qualifying service. According to him, various promotion orders issued between July 2003 and October 2005 show that although several vacancies arose and a number of Sub-Inspectors were promoted, roster points earmarked for SC category candidates—particularly points 27 and 39—were either left unfilled or wrongly diverted to candidates of the General Category. The petitioner asserts that despite being fully eligible, he was neither considered nor promoted against these roster points.

b) The petitioner further contends that the Police Headquarters did not maintain a running roster as mandated under the Reservation Rules, 1994, and promotions were granted in an arbitrary manner adopting a pick-and-choose policy. He submits that although certain candidates belonging to the SC category, such as Tara Chand and later Satveer Singh, were promoted, the roster was not properly operated, resulting in denial of his rightful consideration at roster point 27 (and alternatively point 39).

c) He states that he repeatedly sought personal hearings and made several representations, but no reasons were disclosed. Only after the seniority list of Inspectors was circulated in 2010, and after securing information under the RTI Act in 2014, did he come to know that he had never been accorded the benefit of reservation in promotion despite being eligible in 2003. He submits that he was ultimately promoted as Inspector only in July 2005, and that too merely on the basis of his seniority and not against an SC roster point.

d) By placing multiple promotion orders on record, the petitioner demonstrates that 66 promotions were made from 01.07.2003 to 14.10.2005, yet only three SC candidates were promoted under the reservation quota. On this basis he contends that roster points 27 and 39 ought to have been operated for SC category, and he would have been the rightful beneficiary of at leas