Accepting Alternative Cadre Promotion Without Protest; Can't Challenge Juniors' Elevation In Parent Cadre : J&K HC

A Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that an employee who accepts promotion to a different cadre without challenging the promotions of his juniors in a parallel cadre, when the employer had relaxed the qualifications for others based on seniority, cannot subsequently seek retrospective parity in promotion. Background Facts The petitioner worked as a Reader in the High Court. He was promoted from Section Officer in 1997. He possessed a graduation degree. However, respondents No. 2 and 3 did not possess the degree. They were promoted to Section Officer. Later they were promoted to Assistant Registrar due to relaxation in educational qualifications. When the petitioner was promoted as Reader, he accepted the post without any protest. Later, petitioner realized the limited promotion avenues in the Reader cadre, hence he sought re-designation as Assistant Registrar from 1997. Therefore he claimed seniority above respondents. However, his representations were rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition in 2002 seeking retrospective appointment as Assistant Registrar and consequential promotions. It was argued that the petitioner was a graduate, hence was eligible for promotion as Assistant Registrar. He contended that when promotions to Section Officer were made in 1994, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 above respondents because he possessed the graduation degree. On the other hand it was argued by the respondents that the petitioner having accepted the promotion as Reader without any protest cannot now turn around and claim re-designation as Assistant Registrar after several years. With regard to promotion of respondent No.3 in relaxation of qualification, it was contended that under Rule 6 of the J&K High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968, the Chief Justice was empowered to lay down and relax qualifications for any post. It was argued that respondent No.2 was the senior-most Section Officer available in 1997, therefore he was promoted as Assistant Registrar-II in relaxation of educational qualification by the competent authority. Findings of the Court It was found by the Division Bench that when the promotions to Section Officers were regularised, the seniority list was correctly finalised. Therefore, respondents No.2 and 3 were placed above the petitioner. It was observed by the Bench that the petitioner did not challenge the promotion of respondent No.2 as Assistant Registrar-II, but he only made a representation seeking his own promotion as Assistant Registrar-II on the ground that he was a graduate and possessed the required qualification. It was further observed that the promotions were initiated because few posts of Reader had become vacant. The petitioner was a Section Officer with a graduation degree, hence he was promoted as Reader in the pay scale equivalent to Assistant Registrar-II. The petitioner was promoted even though respondent No. 3 was senior. The petitioner accepted the promotion without protest. Later Respondent No. 3 was promoted as Assistant Registrar-II in the same pay scale. Therefore, the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 were all placed in the same pay scale but in different posts. It was noted that the respondents No. 2 and 3 were not holding the qualification of graduation, but since the qualification stood relaxed while promoting them to the posts of Section Officer, therefore they were promoted to the posts of Assistant Registrar-II in relaxation of the educational qualification. It was held by the court that the petitioner did not wait for the post of Assistant Registrar-II to become available and opted to become a Reader, which was a post equivalent to the grade of Assistant Registrar-II. However, he resented his appointment as Reader after some time when he realised that he might not have good avenues of promotion in the cadre of Reader. Hence, he was not permitted to seek change of his cadre at his will, and after having accepted the appointment by way of promotion as Reader. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Division Bench. Case Name : Abdul Salam Dar v. High Court of J&K and othersCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 78 Case No. : SWP No.888/2002 Counsel for the Petitioner : P.N.Goja Sr. Advocate with Abhinav Jamwal Advocate Counsel for the Respondents : Aditya Gupta AdvocateClick Here To Read/Download Order

Accepting Alternative Cadre Promotion Without Protest; Can't Challenge Juniors' Elevation In Parent Cadre : J&K HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Accepting Alternative Cadre Promotion Without Protest; Can't Challenge Juniors' Elevation In Parent Cadre : J&K HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers