Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment

“Relaxation Once Granted Cannot Be Used To Supersede Seniors”:  High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu dismissed a long-pending service writ petition seeking retrospective appointment as Assistant Registrar-II instead of Reader and consequential promotion benefits.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that once educational qualification had been validly relaxed under Rule 6 of the J&K High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968, the beneficiaries of such relaxation could not be treated differently for purposes of seniority and further promotion. The Court further ruled that an employee who accepts promotion in a particular cadre cannot later seek to change cadres merely because of perceived better promotional avenues.

The petition was held to be devoid of merit and dismissed.

A Retired Reader’s Bid For Retrospective Cadre Shift

The petitioner, Abdul Salam Dar, had superannuated as Reader of the High Court. During service, he filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking:

“to treat him as having been appointed against the post of Assistant Registrar retrospectively from 09.09.1997 and to re-designate him as Assistant Registrar instead of Reader.”

He also sought promotion in Grade-I from the date respondents No.2 and 3 were placed in that grade, along with consequential seniority above respondent No.3.

At the core of the dispute lay two questions:

“Whether the relaxation of educational qualification granted to private respondents was lawful and could affect seniority?”

“Whether the petitioner, after accepting promotion as Reader, could claim retrospective placement in the Assistant Registrar cadre?”

Promotion, Relaxation and Rectified Seniority

The petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 were promoted as Section Officers on ad hoc basis in 1994. Although the petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 in the ad hoc order due to his graduation qualification, respondents No.2 and 3 were senior in the lower cadre of Head Assistants.

Upon regularisation, the High Court corrected the seniority position and placed the petitioner below the private respondents. The Court noted:

“Placement in seniority could not be based on qualification.”

The educational qualification of graduation had been relaxed in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 by Hon’ble the Chief Justice under Rule 6 of the 1968 Rules. The decision was examined by a One-Man Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta and accepted by the Chief Justice.

The High Court observed:

“Once the educational qualification in their favour had been legitimately and legally relaxed… the petitioner as well as respondents No.2 and 3 could not be treated differently.”

Promotion As Assistant Registrar-II And Reader: Diverging Paths

In 1997, one post of Assistant Registrar-II became vacant. Being the senior-most Section Officer, respondent No.2 was promoted in relaxation of qualification.

The petitioner did not challenge this promotion at the relevant time. Instead, when posts of Reader fell vacant, he was promoted as Reader in the same pay scale as Assistant Registrar-II.

Significantly, he accepted the promotion “without any protest or demur.”

Later, respondent No.3 was also promoted as Assistant Registrar-II.

Thus, all three officers were placed in the same grade of Rs.2125–3600 (old), but in different cadres — the petitioner as Reader and respondents as Assistant Registrars-II.

Earlier Litigation: LLB Qualification For Reader

The petitioner’s appointment as Reader was challenged in separate proceedings, culminating in High Court of J&K v. Yash Pal Sharma (LPA (SW) No. 389/2001). The Division Bench held that LLB was the minimum qualification for Reader and directed remedial measures.

However, the appointments were not quashed.

The present Bench clarified:

“There was only a direction to respondent No.1 to take remedial measures and ensure that the Rules are complied with.”

The petitioner continued as Reader until superannuation. No consequential right arose from the earlier judgment to seek redesignation as Assistant Registrar-II.

No Right To Supersede Seniors

The Bench categorically rejected the argument that the petitioner’s graduation qualification entitled him to supersede respondents.

The Court observed:

“The petitioner, being junior to respondents No.2 and 3 in the cadre of Head Assistants, was rightly shown junior after regularisation.”

Further:

“The qualification in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 was legitimately relaxed… Since respondents No.2 and 3 were senior in the lower cadre of Head Assistants, they were rightly shown senior to the petitioner.”

The Court emphasised that relaxation of qualification, once validly exercised under Rule 6, removed any distinction between the officers for promotional purposes.

Estoppel: Acceptance Of Promotion Bars Later Cadre Shift

The most significant observation of the Court concerned the petitioner’s attempt to shift cadre after accepting promotion as Reader.

The Bench held:

“The High Court was justified in not permitting him to seek change of his cadre at his sweet will, and that too after having accepted the appointment by way of promotion as Reader.”

The petitioner, having derived the benefit of the post of Reader — a post equivalent in grade to Assistant Registrar-II — could not later seek retrospective redesignation merely because promotional avenues in that cadre appeared limited.

The Court rejected the submission that the petitioner functioned in the Administrative Wing despite being designated as Reader, stating:

“The petitioner, having been appointed as Reader, was entitled to further promotion… This, however, did not happen during his service career.”

No Arbitrariness, No Retrospective Relief

The Court found no arbitrariness in promoting the senior-most Section Officer to the solitary vacancy of Assistant Registrar-II. It held that the petitioner’s repeated representations had been duly considered and rejected, and those decisions had attained finality.

Ultimately, the Bench concluded:

“For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.”

The writ petition was dismissed. The order was declared speaking and reportable.

The judgment reinforces two important service law principles: first, that relaxation of qualification lawfully exercised cannot later be used to unsettle seniority; and second, that an employee cannot accept promotion in one cadre and subsequently demand retrospective placement in another cadre based on comparative promotional prospects.

Date of Decision: 05/02/2026