MOHAMMED NOWSHAD P M vs THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF REVENUE

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/001074/2017
th
Monday, this the 12 day of January, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Dr. Balu.S, S/o N. Sugathan, Aged 44 years, Instructor (Fishing
Technology), Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and Engineering
Training, Fine Arts Avenue, Kochi-682016.
- Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. T.A. Rajan]
Versus

1. Union of India represented by Secretary, Government of India, Ministry
of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, New Delhi-110 001.
2. Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure, New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
New Delhi-110 001.
4. The Director, Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and Engineering
Training, Fine Arts Avenue, Kochi - 682 016.
- Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. N.Anilkumar, SPC]
The application having been heard on 03.12.2025, the Tribunal on
12.01.2026 delivered the following interim order:
2026.01.12
Deepa S 13:37:12
+05'30'

O.A.No.1074/2017 2
O R D E R
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member
Applicant is aggrieved by the non-feasance on the part of the
respondents in not promoting him to the post of Senior Instructor (Fishing
Technology) after reviving the post at the earliest.
2. The applicant had commenced service as Instructor (Craft and
Gear) in Visakhapatnam unit of the Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and
Engineering Training (CIFNET), which post was later re-designated as
Instructor (Fishing Technology). Later, he was transferred to Kochi in 2012.
3. The next promotion post of Instructor (Fishing Technology) is
Senior Instructor (Fishing Technology) in Pay Band – 3 in the scale of Rs.15600-
39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. As per the Recruitment Rules, Annexure-
A5, 66.67% of the posts have to be filled up by promotion failing which by
deputation and 33.33% by deputation failing which by direct recruitment. The
feeder categories are Fishery Officer in Pay Band-2 in the scale of Rs.9300-
34800 with grade pay of Rs.4600/- with three years of regular service and
Instructor (Fishing Technology) in Pay Band-2 in the scale of Rs.9300-34800
with grade pay of Rs.4200/- with eight years regular service. According to the
applicant, at present there is no Fishery Officer in CIFNET so that the
Instructors (Fishing Technology) having the requisite qualifying service have to
2026.01.12
Deepa S 13:37:12
+05'30'

O.A.No.1074/2017 3
be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Instructor(Fishing
Technology). The applicant is the senior most in the cadre. Though
representations were made for promoting him, that were not considered. At
last, he moved this Tribunal with O.A.310/2017. The O.A. was disposed of
rd
through Annexure-A8 order on 07.04.2017 directing the 3 respondent to
dispose of his representation within two months. Following Annexure-A8,
th
Annexure-A9 communication was issued to the 4 respondent stating that his
representation is under consideration, that a vacancy is available for
promotion of the applicant and requested to send the proposal. However, the
grievance of the applicant is that, through Annexure-A10 he was informed
that though he is eligible to be promoted, the post of Senior Instructor comes
under a deemed abolished category, as it had remained vacant for more than
two years, and therefore his representation could not be considered. It was
further stated that proposal for revival of the post has already been sent to
the Department of Expenditure and that his case for promotion will be
processed and sent to the UPSC on receipt of clearance from the Department
of Expenditure.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this
Tribunal seeking to quash Annexure-A10, for a declaration that keeping
vacancies of Senior Instructor (Fishing Technology) under deemed abolished
2026.01.12
Deepa S 13:37:12
+05'30'

O.A.No.1074/2017 4
category is illegal, to direct the respondents to consider and promote the
applicant to the post from the date he became eligible for promotion and to
nd
grant him consequential benefits and to direct the 2 respondent to revive
the post of Senior Instructor(Fishing Technology) in CIFNET at the earliest.
5. According to the applicant, from Annexure-A9 it is clear that a
vacancy of Senior Instructor (Fishing Technology) was created on 06.08.2015,
still it was stated that the said vacancy came under deemed abolished
category. The delay in filling up the post is due to administrative reasons for
which the applicant cannot be penalised. According to him, Annexure-A12
clearly indicates that proposals were already forwarded to the Ministry by the
th
4 respondent. Still, keeping the post under deemed abolished category is
arbitrary, unjust and illegal.
th
6. On behalf of the respondents, the 4 respondent filed reply in
tune with Annexure-A10 communication. According to them, out of 6
sanctioned posts of Senior Instructor, 4 posts required to be filled up by
promotion and 2 by deputation/direct recruitment. Out of all the 6 posts, 5
posts were remaining vacant, the matter regarding revival of the vacant post
was taken up with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and
they had approved revival of three posts, which fell vacant on 01.12.2012,
02.03.2013 and 06.08.2015. After Annexure-A5 had come into force, two
2026.01.12
Deepa S 13:37:12
+05'30'

O.A.No.1074/2017 5
posts were filled up by promotion. Later, one of them retired on 30.11.2012.
Therefore, two posts of the first cycle and one post of the second cycle, total
three posts are to be filled up by promotion. Proposals for filling up the post
fell vacant on 01.12.2012 and 02.13.2013 have already been forwarded.
Regarding the post revived on 06.08.2015, steps were taken up for filling up
on deputation basis.
7. According to the respondents, after the issue of Annexure-A10
th
communication, three posts have been revived and the 4 respondent has
already sent communication on 12.01.2018 to the administrative Ministry and
rd
the matter is being processed by the 3 respondent and taken up with the
UPSC for further consideration. According to them, the applicant is being
considered for promotion to the post. So, the O.A. is sought to be dismissed.
8. In the rejoinder filed on 07.08.2019 it is conceded that during the
pendency of the O.A., though belatedly, he was promoted as Senior Instructor
(Fishing Technology) on 23.05.2019 and posted in the CIFNET unit,
Visakhapatnam. Promotion has been given prospectively, though in
rd
Annexure-A9 the 3 respondent had assured to consider him in the vacancy
created on 06.08.2015. The delay is attributable to the respondents and he is
entitled to get promotion from 06.08.2015.
9. According to the applicant, the deemed abolishment of the posts
2026.01.12
Deepa S 13:37:12
+05'30'

O.A.No.1074/2017 6
and the non-convening of the DPC on time are due to the latches on the part
of the respondents, for which he cannot be penalised. He submits that the
delay has adversely affected his career progression.
10. The learned Standing Counsel also produced copy of the order
dated 23.05.2019 whereunder the applicant was promoted and posted in
Visakhapatnam. The applicant also produced certain additional documents
along with a Miscellaneous Application.
11. We heard Sri.T.A.Rajan, learned counsel for the applicant and
Smt.Deepa Devi learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents.
12. It has come out that the applicant has since been promoted as
Senior Instructor (Fishing Technology) from 23.05.2019. In that case, the O.A.
has become infructuous. But, according to the applicant, everything is
attributable to the delay and latches happened on the part of the
respondents. If his representations were considered seriously, the post would
not have been kept under deemed abolished category. The resultant loss
suffered by him is irreparable and that would affect his future prospects.
Learned counsel also pressed for ante dating the effect of promotion atleast
from the date of revival of the post. According to the learned counsel, the
applicant has lost his valuable 1½ years service as Senior Instructor, which may
2026.01.12
Deepa S 13:37:12
+05'30'

O.A.No.1074/2017 7
reflect in his future career. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the
decision of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. 1709/2012 dated
12.11.2013 in Deep Chand Sharma and others v. Union of India and others,
judgment of the Deli High Court in WP(C)No.7416/2015 dated 15.05.2018 in
B.Kumaravel v. Union of India and others and argued that the applicant is
entitled to antedate the effect of promotion. But both the decisions were
rendered on its own facts.
13. On the other hand, according to the learned Standing Counsel,
the applicant has already been promoted after reviving the post. She has
placed reliance on Nirmal Chandra Sinha v. Union of India and others
[((2008) 14 SCC 29] and submitted that promotion can take effect only from
the date of granting promotion and not from the date of occurrence of the
vacancy or creation of the post.
14. Applicant was aggrieved by non-granting of promotion as Senior
Instructor (Fishing Technology), even though he possessed all the necessary
qualifications and service as required in Anneure-A5 Recruitment Rules.
According to him, he had given Annexure-A7 representation when he had 8
years and 9 months of service as Instructor (Fishing Technology). On the
instructions of this Tribunal, steps were also taken for filling up the post.
However, Annexure-A10 indicates that the vacancy could not be filled up since
2026.01.12
Deepa S 13:37:12
+05'30'

O.A.No.1074/2017 8
it was placed under deemed abolished category.
15. The applicant sought for quashing Annexure-A10 and to direct
the respondents to fill up the post after reviving the post of Senior Instructor.
In fact during the pendency of the O.A., he has been granted promotion as
seen from the copy of the order dated 23.05.2019 produced by the
respondents. In that way, the grievance of the applicant stands already
redressed and the O.A. has become redundant.
16. But, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, if the
respondents were vigilant enough, the post would not have fallen within
deemed abolished category. According to him, they did not show enthusiasm
in convening the DPC in time such lapses and delay have caused him
considerable loss. So, the learned counsel pressed for ante dating the
promotion from the date of revival of the post.
17. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view
that, for numerous reasons, such a relief cannot be granted.
18. Firstly, it is the well settled proposition of law that one does not
have any vested right for promotion, instead, has only a right to be considered
for promotion. Immediately after completing the residency period of eight
years, the applicant started requesting for promotion as though he has an
inherent right for promotion. It could not be stated that the respondents did
2026.01.12
Deepa S 13:37:12
+05'30'

O.A.No.1074/2017 9
not take up his representation seriously. In fact we do not find anything in
Annexure-A10, which is adverse or against the interests of the applicant. It
only stated that the proposal for revival of the post has been sent to the
department concerned and that it would be appropriately pursued. There is
nothing in Annexure-A10 annihilating the interests of the applicant,
warranting its quashment.
19. Moreover, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmal
Chandra Sinha , quoted by the learned Standing Counsel, ordinarily,
promotion can be given only prospectively and cannot be granted from the
date of occurrence of vacancy. This decision has been reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent authorities also. In Union of India and
others v. N.C.Murali and others [AIR 2017 SC 1496] it has been held that
promotion does not crystallize on the date of occurrence of vacancy unless
statutory Rules mandate it. As submitted by the learned Standing Counsel,
one cannot claim proforma promotion and retrospective seniority.
20. Similarly, in Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Dharamdeo
Das [AIR 2024 SC 4609] it was held that no employee can lay claim for being
promoted to the next higher post merely on completing minimum qualifying
service.
21. For yet another reason, the applicant cannot claim retrospective
2026.01.12
Deepa S 13:37:12
+05'30'

O.A.No.1074/2017 10
effect to the promotion since the nature of duties of a Senior Instructor must
be different from the duties of an Instructor, the post held by the applicant
hitherto.
22. Again, promotion was materialised only after it was cleared by
the DPC. Therefore, merely for the reason that the post stood revived,
applicant cannot claim it as a matter of course.
On these considerations, the prayer for granting promotion with
retrospective effect is declined. Recording the factum of promotion granted
to the applicant, this Original Application is closed. No costs.
th
(Dated, this the 12 day of January, 2026)
Mr. BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds

2026.01.12
Deepa S 13:37:12
+05'30'

O.A.No.1074/2017 11
List of Annexures
Annexure A1: True copy of the certificate of Bachelors Degree in Zoology
from Kerala University.
Annexure A2: True copy of the certificate of Post Graduate Diploma in
Fisheries Science from Central Institute of Fisheries
Education, Mumbai.
Annexure A3: True copy of the Doctor of Philosophy (Marine Biology)
from Karnatak University, Dharwad.
Annexure A4: True copy of the office order 13-21/03-Adm dated
29.6.2007 of the 4th respondent.
Annexure A5: True copy of the Recruitment Rules to the post of Senior
Instructor (Fishing Technology).
Annexure A6: True copy of the seniority list of Instructor (Fishing
Technology)
Annexure A7: True copy of the representation dated 23.2.2016 of the
applicant.
Annexure A8: True copy of the order dated 7.4.2017 of this Hon'ble
Tribunal in OA No. 310/2017.
Annexure A9: True copy of the letter F. No.3-17/2017/Admn-V dated
26.5.2017
Annexure A10: Order F. No. 3-17/2017-AdmnV dated 24.08.2017 of the
third respondent.
Annexure A11: True copy of the OM bearing No.7(1)/E Co-or-1/2017 dated
12.4.2017 of the second respondent
Annexure A12: True copy of the letter bearing No.13-6/2012-Adm-C/1176
dated 1.12.2015 of the 4th respondent
2026.01.12
Deepa S 13:37:12
+05'30'

O.A.No.1074/2017 12
Annexure A13: True copy of the letter bearing No.15(1)/01/E Coord. 1/
2022 dated 16.02.2022
Annexure A14: True copies of the office memorandum bearing
No.22011/9/98-Estt(D).dated 08.09.1998, (22011/1/2011-
Estt D dated 23.04.2015, 22011/4/2013-Estt (D) dated
28.01.2015, 22011/1/2011 dated 27.10.2016

2026.01.12
Deepa S 13:37:12
+05'30'