Completion of qualifying service confers eligibility for consideration, not an automatic right to promotion.

The applicant, initially appointed as Mate (Semi-Skilled) on 10.05.2013 and allotted the trade of Mate (FGM), exercised an option on 12.09.2015 for change of trade to Mate (Electrician).

He claimed that he thereafter performed duties in the electrician trade and that official documents described him as Mate (Electrician).

The respondents maintained that the change of trade became effective only from 24.08.2016, the date associated with the applicant’s qualifying trade test and entry into the electrician trade.

The applicable Recruitment Rules required three years’ regular service in the feeder grade for promotion to Electrician (Skilled).

The applicant was promoted by order dated 19.03.2021, but the promotion was subsequently withdrawn by order dated 02.09.2021 after a Review DPC found that he lacked the requisite qualifying service on the relevant crucial date.

The applicant challenged the withdrawal, sought recognition of his electrician service from 12.09.2015, and claimed promotion from 12.09.2018, also alleging that juniors had been promoted.

1. Whether the applicant’s service as Mate (Electrician) could be reckoned from 12.09.2015 merely on the basis of his option for change of trade and the subsequent performance of electrician duties?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to promotion to Electrician (Skilled) from 12.09.2018 or the 2019 DPC year upon completion of three years’ service in the feeder trade?

3. Whether withdrawal of the promotion order was sustainable, and whether the applicant was entitled to consideration for promotion in a subsequent DPC year after completing the prescribed qualifying service?

4. Whether the alleged promotion of juniors required the applicant’s consideration for promotion from the corresponding date?

A change of trade must be approved and effected by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable service rules; a mere option or countersignature does not automatically confer substantive service status from the date of the option.

Completion of the prescribed qualifying service creates eligibility for consideration, not an automatic entitlement to promotion; promotion remains subject to the applicable crucial date, vacancies, seniority, suitability and the DPC process.

Eligibility must be assessed as on the prescribed crucial date, and qualifying service completed after that date cannot retrospectively establish eligibility for that particular DPC year.

Relying on Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Dharamdeo Das, the Tribunal reiterated that completion of minimum service or the existence of a vacancy does not, by itself, confer a right to promotion or retrospective promotion.

An erroneous promotion contrary to the Recruitment Rules need not be perpetuated, but correction of that error cannot defeat a subsequently accrued right to consideration under the Rules.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim that his service in the electrician trade commenced on 12.09.2015, since no competent-authority order establishing that effective date was shown.

It accepted the respondents’ own position that the applicant entered the feeder trade on 24.08.2016.

On that basis, the applicant completed three years’ service on 24.08.2019, but he had not completed three years as on 01.04.2019, which was the crucial date for the relevant 2019 DPC; therefore, he could not claim promotion from that DPC year merely because the qualifying period was completed later.

Nevertheless, the respondents could not permanently close his promotional claim. His eligibility had to be considered in the first subsequent DPC or recruitment year in which he satisfied the qualifying-service requirement, subject to the other Recruitment Rule conditions.

The Tribunal also directed examination of the applicant’s plea concerning juniors, but clarified that such comparison would assist him only if the alleged juniors were in the same relevant seniority unit and were otherwise similarly situated after he became eligible.

The Tribunal found it unnecessary to conclusively decide the natural-justice question because the substantive relief of fresh consideration adequately addressed the applicant’s grievance.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s service as Mate (Electrician) would be reckoned from 24.08.2016, not 12.09.2015.

He was not entitled to automatic promotion from 12.09.2018, 24.08.2019, or the 2019 DPC year, since eligibility had to be determined with reference to the applicable crucial date.

The respondents were directed to consider him for promotion against the first subsequent DPC or recruitment year for which he fulfilled the three-year qualifying-service requirement, and, if necessary, to convene a Review DPC.

They were also directed to examine the claim regarding promotion of juniors.

If found fit, the applicant was to receive notional promotion, pay fixation and consequential seniority from the date determined under the Rules, with monetary benefits governed by applicable law.

The exercise was to be completed within three months by a speaking order, and the impugned order dated 02.09.2021 was modified accordingly.