1. Class-IV employees seek recognition of pre-service technical qualifications for in-service promotion to the Electrical cadre, challenging departmental restrictions imposed in the seniority list. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14696
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU
Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member, Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
Bablu Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
Original Application No. 719/2022
Important Points
Technical qualifications acquired before entering government service cannot be disregarded for promotional purposes solely on the ground that prior departmental permission was not obtained, as such permission is only relevant for courses undertaken during service.
Subject
Service Law - Promotion and Recruitment
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Promotion - Technical Qualifications - Recognition of qualifications acquired prior to appointment - Requirement of prior departmental permission is applicable to courses undertaken during service and cannot be extended to qualifications obtained before entering government service. (Para 21, 26)
(B) Recruitment Rules - Seniority List - Introduction of new conditions - A seniority list or administrative clarification cannot introduce additional eligibility conditions for promotion that are not provided for in the statutory recruitment rules. (Para 22, 23)
(C) Equality in Employment - Consistency in Treatment - Similarly situated employees should be treated consistently; if others were promoted based on pre-appointment qualifications, the same benefit should be extended to others provided they are otherwise eligible. (Para 31, 35)
Issues: Whether technical qualifications acquired before appointment can be disregarded for promotion on the ground of lack of prior departmental permission.
(B) Recruitment Rules - Seniority List - Introduction of new conditions - A seniority list or administrative clarification cannot introduce additional eligibility conditions for promotion that are not provided for in the statutory recruitment rules. (Para 22, 23)
(C) Equality in Employment - Consistency in Treatment - Similarly situated employees should be treated consistently; if others were promoted based on pre-appointment qualifications, the same benefit should be extended to others provided they are otherwise eligible. (Para 31, 35)
Issues: Whether technical qualifications acquired before appointment can be disregarded for promotion on the ground of lack of prior departmental permission.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avish Sharma
For the Respondents: Sudesh Magotra
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avish Sharma
For the Respondents: Sudesh Magotra
Table of Contents
2. Applicants claim eligibility based on acquired qualifications; respondents contend applicants require prior departmental permission for pre-service qualifications to be recognized for promotion. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. The requirement for prior departmental permission applies only to in-service courses; existing employees cannot be penalized for qualifications acquired before the existence of an employer-employee relationship. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 32 )
4. Eligibility for promotion based on pre-service qualifications cannot be denied for lack of prior departmental permission unless specifically required by governing recruitment rules. (Para 21 , 33 , 36 )
5. The Tribunal quashed the restrictive seniority list provision and directed the respondents to consider the applicants for promotion without penalizing their pre-service qualifications. (Para 37 , 38 )
6. Can an employer demand prior permission for technical qualifications acquired before the start of government service?
No. The court held that a person not yet in government service cannot be expected to obtain permission from a department with which no employer-employee relationship exists. (Para 21 , 26 )
7. Can administrative circulars or seniority list criteria alter established promotional eligibility rules?
No. Administrative circulars and seniority criteria cannot override or add new eligibility restrictions not provided for under the governing statutory recruitment rules. (Para 22 , 33 )
8. Does a change in job designation after filing an application negate an employee's claim for promotional consideration?
No. A restructuring of posts does not invalidate an existing claim; authorities must assess the employee against the relevant promotional posts as defined by the applicable recruitment rules. (Para 29 , 30 )
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) “That this Hon’ble Tribunal may allow the instant Original Application;
b) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to issue an order directing Respondents to consider the qualification (Electrician training course) of the Applicants and approve their eligibility for in-service promotion in the Electrical cadre (Lineman);
c) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned rule/restriction mentioned in the seniority list dated21/05/2022; and
d) To pass such other orders which are found just fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”
2. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking directions to the respondents to recognize their technical qualifications in the Electrician Trade and declare them eligible for consideration for in-service promotion to the post of Lineman in the Electrical Cadre. They have also challenged the restriction incorporated in the seniority list issued in 2022, whereby technical qualifications acquired without prior permission of the competent authority are not to be considered for promotion.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were appointed as Class-IV employees in the Associated Hospitals of Government Medical College, Jammu. Applicant No. 1, Bablu Sharma, was appointed vide order dated 22.10.2014 and joined service on 12.01.2015, whereas applicant No. 2, Amit Sharma, was appointed vide order dated 30.09.2014 and joined service on 27.09.2014. Both applicants had acquired technical qualifications in the Electrician Trade from Government Industrial Training Institutes before entering government service.
4. The applicants submit that the advertisement under which they were appointed prescribed Matriculation as the minimum qualification and 10+2 as the maximum qualification for Class-IV posts in terms of SRO-99 of 2008 . However, the advertisement did not contain any condition that a technical qualification acquired before appointment would not be recognized for future promotion.
5. It is further submitted that the respondents issued circulars dated26.02.2016 and 19.11.2019, calling upon Class-IV employees to furnish details of their educational and technical qualifications for inclusion in the departmental records. Pursuant to these circulars, the applicants submitted their Electrician Trade certificates, which were entered in their service records. Their names also appeared in the final seniority list issued on 20.05.2020 at serial Nos. 659 and 524, respectively.
6. The applicants rely upon Government Order No. 34-HME of 2018 dated 11.01.2018, which prescribed the method of recruitment and promotion to various posts in Government Medical Colleges and Associated Hospitals. According to the applicants, the said order provided for filling 75% of the posts of Lineman through direct recruitment and 25% through promotion from eligible in-service candidates possessing Matriculation and a recognized diploma in the Electrical Trade. They submit that there was no condition requiring the diploma to have been obtained after entering government service.
7. The applicants further submit that they obtained information under the Right to Information Act, which revealed that no general restriction had been imposed by the General Administration Department against consideration of technical qualifications acquired before appointment. They have also referred to the cases of Tilak Raj, Yogi Raj, Gansham and Kulsooma, who, according to them, were promoted despite having acquired their technical qualifications before joining government service.
8. The grievance of the applicants arose when the respondents issued a communication dated 2
