A conditional promotion may be withdrawn when its eligibility basis ceases to exist.

The applicants, Stenographer Grade-II employees, were promoted to Grade-I by order dated 1 December 2022.

They had not independently completed the prescribed four years’ qualifying service in the feeder grade; they were considered under the junior-senior clause because their junior, Ms. Sudha, was within the zone of consideration.

Their promotions were expressly provisional and subject to the outcome of proceedings in her case.

Following the Tribunal’s order in Ms. Sudha’s case, the respondents withdrew the promotions and reverted the applicants by order dated 14 October 2024.

The applicants sought to quash that order, claim promotion from 1 January 2022, and protect the benefits of the period they worked in Grade-I.

1. Whether the respondents could withdraw the applicants’ provisional promotions and revert them after the basis for their consideration under the junior-senior clause ceased to exist.

2. Whether reversion without a separate notice violated the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the applicants were entitled to promotion from 1 January 2022.

4. Whether the applicants could retain the pay, allowances, and increments received for the period they actually performed Grade-I duties.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the procedural basis for an application to the Tribunal.

Under the applicable Recruitment Rules, where a junior is considered for promotion after completing the prescribed qualifying service, seniors may also be considered notwithstanding that they have not completed that service, provided they have completed the prescribed probation.

A promotion expressly made provisional and subject to the outcome of pending proceedings does not, by itself, create an unconditional right to retain the post; its terms and the subsequent change in the basis for eligibility are material.

The Tribunal applied State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, to hold that recovery of higher emoluments was impermissible where employees had actually performed the higher duties and there was no fraud or misrepresentation.

The Tribunal’s earlier decision in OA Nos. 854–863/2013, affirmed by the Karnataka High Court, was treated as fact-specific rather than a general rule requiring continuation in a promotional post.

The applicants’ eligibility for the 2022 promotions depended on the junior-senior clause operating because Ms. Sudha was then under consideration.

They had not otherwise completed the required four years’ service, and their promotion orders expressly made their promotions conditional on the outcome of her case.

Once that outcome moved Ms. Sudha to consideration for an earlier vacancy year, the basis for considering the applicants for the 2022 vacancies ceased to exist; the Tribunal therefore found no independent entitlement to promotion or to promotion from 1 January 2022.

It also found that the applicants had been put on notice of the relevant contingency through the promotion order and had not shown what substantive defence a separate notice could have affected, so the absence of separate notice did not invalidate the reversion on these facts.

The earlier CAT and High Court decisions did not alter that conclusion because they arose in materially different circumstances.

However, reversion was distinct from recovery: because the applicants had actually performed Grade-I duties and were not alleged to have acted fraudulently or misrepresented facts, the Tribunal protected the emoluments already received and the increments earned during that service.

The Tribunal upheld the withdrawal of the applicants’ provisional promotions and rejected their claims to continue in Grade-I or receive promotion from 1 January 2022.

It prohibited recovery of the higher emoluments paid for the period during which the applicants actually performed Grade-I duties and directed that increments earned during that period be retained as special increments in the feeder grade.

No order as to costs.