Srinagar: Reiterating that a government employee has no vested right to promotion or to compel the government to create posts for promotional avenues, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has held that an employee’s enforceable right is confined to being considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules.
The court observed that issues relating to cadre strength, restructuring and creation of posts fall exclusively within the executive domain and cannot be judicially mandated merely because employees face prolonged stagnation.
Justice Shahzad Azeem made these observations while dismissing a writ petition filed by Mohammad Yaseen Khan, a retired driver, who had challenged the validity of a note appended to SRO 28 of 1996 governing promotions in the Drivers’ cadre.
The petitioner had sought retrospective promotion to the post of Chauffeur after completing the prescribed five years of service as Driver Grade-I, contending that the requirement making promotion subject to availability of posts was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
He also prayed for striking down the relevant provision of SRO 28, arguing that long stagnation in a small cadre deprived him of promotional benefits.
The petitioner, appointed as Driver in 1989, submitted that despite completing the required service and obtaining a decree in his favour in earlier litigation, he remained without functional promotion because the lone post of Chauffeur continued to be occupied by his senior.
The respondent government authorities opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had already received three in-situ promotions under SRO 14 of 1996, resulting in successive financial upgradations, and that functional promotion could not be granted in the absence of a vacancy.
After examining the record, the Court noted that the petitioner had already availed three financial upgradations during service and had failed to demonstrate any financial loss arising from the denial of functional promotion. Since he retired on attaining superannuation in March 2025, no consequential relief could be granted in the absence of any pleaded prejudice.
Referring to the Supreme Court decisions in State of Odisha v. Sreepati Ranjan Dash (2026) and Union of India v. Ilmo Devi (2021), the Court held that employees cannot claim promotion as a matter of right or insist upon enhancement of cadre strength to facilitate promotions.
It further ruled that courts cannot direct governments to create posts or alter cadre structures, as such matters are governed by administrative policy and resource considerations.
Holding that the challenged provision had been uniformly applied and did not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution, the Court upheld the validity of the note appended to SRO 28. It observed that while prolonged stagnation in small cadres may be a genuine hardship, it does not justify judicial rewriting of service rules or confer a right to functional promotion outside the statutory framework.
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the writ petition along with all connected applications.
