Departmental examinations passed before technical resignation remain valid for promotion in the new region.

The applicant, Prashant Shukla, was appointed as an Income Tax Inspector (ITI) in the Mumbai Region on October 28, 2009, where he cleared the mandatory departmental confirmatory examination

After clearing the CGL Examination 2008, he joined the Kanpur (U.P. West) Region on February 14, 2011, following a "technical resignation" from the Mumbai post

The respondents regularized his service in the new region, protecting his past service benefits including pay and leave

In 2015, the respondents permitted the applicant to appear for the departmental examination for promotion to Income Tax Officer (ITO), which he qualified, and consequently granted him two advance increments

However, via orders dated March 21, 2017, and June 8, 2017, the respondents declared him ineligible for promotion to ITO on the grounds that he had not cleared the ITI confirmatory exam specifically in the Kanpur region

Juniors were subsequently promoted ahead of him

OA No. 1353/2017 was dismissed as infructuous as those applicants had already been promoted during the pendency of the litigation

Whether a candidate who joined a new region via technical resignation is required to re-appear for a departmental confirmatory examination already cleared in the previous region for the same post.

Whether the respondents are estopped from declaring the applicant ineligible after permitting him to sit for the promotional exam and granting him financial benefits based on his success.

The court applied the principles governing "Technical Resignation" as per various DoPT Office Memorandums (e.g., OM dated 17.08.2016 and 26.12.2013), which protect past service for pay, leave, and pension

It relied on the Doctrine of Estoppel, preventing the administration from reversing a benefit after acknowledging eligibility and granting increments

The court further applied the precedent from B.M. Mehta v. State of Gujarat, holding that a person who has passed a departmental exam for a post should not be subjected to it again upon a new appointment to the same post

It also cited Renu Mullick v. Union of India, distinguishing between service for seniority and service for eligibility, affirming that previous service is relevant for determining promotional eligibility

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s service was continuous and his past benefits were protected upon his transfer through technical resignation

It found that the post of ITI held in Mumbai was identical to the post held in Kanpur; therefore, requiring a second proficiency test for the same cadre lacked legal basis

The court noted that the respondents’ own actions—allowing the applicant to sit for the ITO exam, declaring him successful, and granting him two advance increments—created a legitimate expectation of promotion

The Tribunal scrutinized the cited DoPT OMs and regional circulars, finding no specific clause that mandated the exclusion of results from a departmental exam passed in a different region for the same post

Consequently, the respondents' belated decision to declare him ineligible after six years, without a show-cause notice, was deemed arbitrary and a violation of the principles of natural justice

It quashed the impugned orders dated 21.03.2017, 24.03.2017, 28.03.2017, and 08.06.2017

The Court held that the applicant cannot be compelled to re-pass a proficiency test he had already cleared in the Mumbai region

The respondents were directed to extend the benefit of promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer to the applicant within three months from the receipt of the order