Administrative Negligence Depriving Promotion Opportunities Must Be Compensated Through Costs Despite Subsequent Participation in Selection Processes.

The applicant, a Trackman Gr-III in the South Eastern Railway, applied for the post of Staff and Welfare Inspector (Level-6) following a notification dated 30.12.2021

He submitted his application through the proper channel to his controlling officer on 10.01.2022

However, his office failed to forward the application to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer (DPO) until 04.04.2022, well past the deadline of 07.02.2022

Consequently, the applicant was excluded from the written examination

An internal inquiry found a Senior Clerk responsible for the delay, resulting in a minor penalty

During the pendency of the litigation, a second selection process was held in 2023; the applicant participated but failed to qualify the written exam

The applicant sought to quash the rejection order and requested a retrospective promotion opportunity

1. Whether the administrative delay in forwarding a timely submitted application constitutes a valid ground to quash the selection process or grant retrospective relief after the applicant failed a subsequent opportunity.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation for the administrative negligence and subsequent litigation costs.

The Tribunal adjudicated the matter under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It applied the principle of administrative accountability, holding that while an employee cannot be granted a post if they fail to qualify in a subsequent fair selection process, the administration is liable for "procedural lapses" and "negligence" that deprive an employee of a timely opportunity

The court also exercised its discretionary power to award litigation costs to mitigate the hardship caused by administrative delays

The Tribunal observed that the applicant was undeniably deprived of the 2021 selection opportunity due to no fault of his own, as his application was held up by his controlling office

The respondents acknowledged this lapse by punishing a clerk

However, the Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant was permitted to appear in the 2023 selection process—thereby receiving a "remedial" opportunity—and subsequently failed the examination on merit, there were no grounds to set aside the 2022 impugned order or mandate a promotion

Despite the lack of merit for the substantive relief of promotion, the Tribunal found the respondents’ efforts to redress the grievance in 2021 were not "sincere" or "immediate"

It determined that the applicant was forced into unnecessary litigation due to the department's initial failure to act on his representations

However, acknowledging the administrative negligence that forced the applicant into legal proceedings, the Tribunal directed the respondents to pay a cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) to the applicant within two months of receiving the order

The Original Application was disposed of with these directions