Long Stagnation In Small Cadres Doesn't Create Right To Promotion Or Cadre Expansion: J&K&L High Court

Shedding light on service law and cadre restructuring, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the constitutional validity of the note appended to Rule 1 of SRO 28 of 1996, holding that government employees cannot seek court directions for promotion merely because they have remained stagnated in a small cadre for a long time.

The Court held that although prolonged stagnation is a genuine hardship, it cannot justify judicial rewriting of service rules or directions to the Government to create promotional posts where none exist.

Justice Shahzad Azeem made these observations while dismissing a writ petition filed by Mohammad Yaseen Khan, a retired Driver of the Institute of Management, Public Administration and Rural Development (IMPA), who had challenged the constitutional validity of the note appended to Rule 1 of SRO 28 of 1996 and sought retrospective promotion as Chauffeur with all consequential benefits.

The Court observed, "The only right an employee has in the matter of promotion is the right to be considered for promotion, which flows from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Failure to consider an eligible employee may violate this right, but it does not translate into a right to actual promotion or to compel structural changes such as cadre expansion."

Background:

Rule 1 of SRO 28 dated 25 January 1996 prescribes five years' service in the feeding cadre as the eligibility for promotion to the next grade, but makes it subject to availability of the post. 

The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in 1989 and received three in-situ promotions under SRO 14 of 1996, giving him financial upgradations during service. However, he could not be promoted as Chauffeur because there was only one sanctioned post of Chauffeur in the department, which remained occupied by his senior.

Challenging the rule, the petitioner argued that once an employee completed the required five years of service, promotion should automatically follow and should not depend upon the availability of vacancies. He contended that the condition imposed by SRO 28 was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The respondents submitted that the petitioner had already received three financial upgradations and that his non-promotion was solely due to the absence of a vacancy. They argued that no employee can claim functional promotion as a matter of right where no promotional post exists.

Court's Observations:

The Court held that the central issue was whether a government employee has a vested right to seek promotion by compelling the Government to increase the cadre strength or create additional promotional posts.

The Court first noted that the petitioner had already received three in-situ promotions and had failed to show that he had suffered any financial loss because of the absence of functional promotion. It also observed that he had already retired and had not demonstrated any adverse impact on his retiral benefits.

The Court reiterated that promotion is governed by service rules, availability of vacancies and administrative policy. It observed,

"Promotion is not a matter of right; it depends upon the rules, existence of vacancies, eligibility and administrative policy. The Constitution does not prescribe any specific criteria for promotion."

The Court further held that although Articles 14 and 16 guarantee fair consideration for promotion, they do not give employees a right to compel the Government to restructure cadres or create additional posts.

Emphasising that cadre management is a matter of executive policy, the Court observed,

"The Government enjoys wide discretion to determine, review, restructure or re-fix cadre strength on the basis of administrative rules, policy and resources. Employees cannot demand encadrement of additional posts or creation of new posts for enhancement of cadre strength to facilitate promotions."

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in State of Odisha v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash (2026 SCC OnLine SC 879), which held that government employees have no vested right to compel the State to fill vacancies through promotion, particularly during cadre restructuring. It also relied on Union of India v. Ilmo Devi (2021) 20 SCC 290, reiterating that High Courts cannot direct the Government to create posts or frame service policies.

Rejecting the constitutional challenge, the Court held that the petitioner had failed to show that the impugned provision was discriminatory or arbitrary. It found that the rule applies uniformly across departments depending upon the size of the cadre. The Court thus concluded that although long stagnation in small cadres is an unfortunate reality, it cannot be a ground to strike down a valid service rule or direct the Government to create promotional posts.

Holding that the note appended to Rule 1 of SRO 28 of 1996 is constitutionally valid and that the petitioner had no legal right to claim promotion in the absence of an available post, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.