Appointment Open to All Qualified Departmental Candidates Constitutes Direct Recruitment, Not Promotion, for Determining ACP/MACP Benefits

The Respondent was initially appointed as an LDC on June 30, 1970, and was later appointed as an IBM Typist on April 9, 1975, following a departmental test.

The petitioners (original writ petitioners) sought a review of the judgment dated February 9, 2023, which had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision granting the Respondent ACP benefits on the completion of 24 years of service as an IBM Typist.

The petitioners contended that the 1975 appointment was a "promotion" rather than a "direct appointment," arguing that because she had already received two promotions and a 3rd MACP, she was ineligible for further financial upgradation.

The review petition was filed with a delay of 462 days.

1. Whether the appointment of the Respondent to the post of IBM Typist in 1975 constituted a "promotion" or a "direct recruitment" for the purposes of determining eligibility for ACP/MACP benefits.

2. Whether there exists any "error apparent on the face of the record" justifying a review of the judgment dated February 9, 2023.

The court applied the principles governing Review Jurisdiction, specifically the requirement of an "error apparent on the face of the record".

It also interpreted the Recruitment Rules regarding the nature of appointment, distinguishing between "promotion" (restricted to a specific feeder cadre) and "direct recruitment" (where the zone of consideration includes various departmental candidates based on educational qualifications and training).

The court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that the Respondent's 1975 appointment was a promotion. It reasoned that because the zone of consideration was not confined to the feeder cadre of LDCs but was open to all departmental candidates possessing the requisite qualifications, the appointment took the "colour of a direct recruitment".

The court noted that even though the DoP&T previously opined the appointment was irregular, the Respondent continued in the post and was even promoted further.

Furthermore, a comparison with juniors (Vinod Kumar Sharma and Pawan Kumar Bansal) demonstrated that they had received ACP benefits that were denied to the Respondent, despite her earlier appointment date.

The court concluded that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any manifest error in the original judgment, but rather sought a re-appreciation of findings already decided.

The High Court dismissed the review petition and the application for stay, while allowing the application for condonation of the 462-day delay in filing the review petition.

The final holding affirmed that there was no merit in the review as there was no error apparent on the face of the record.