Eligibility for consideration does not create an entitlement to promotion to the higher grade.

The applicant joined the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) as Tradesman ‘B’ in 1996 and progressed through the grades to Tradesman ‘E’.

After acquiring an additional qualification in Metallurgical Engineering and passing the Departmental Qualifying Examination, he was promoted to Technical Officer ‘B’ (TO/B) from 1 July 2009.

He claimed that he should instead have been promoted directly to Technical Officer ‘C’ (TO/C), relying on Clause 10.7 of the applicable Trombay Council Promotion Norms dated 20 March 2009.

He filed OA No. 1413/2018 seeking that upgradation and OA No. 580/2022 seeking consequential pay fixation.

He had subsequently been promoted to TO/C from 1 July 2012 and TO/D from 1 July 2017.

Whether the applicant’s additional qualification and eligibility for consideration under Clause 10.7 entitled him to promotion directly to TO/C from 1 July 2009, rather than TO/B.

Whether the Selection Committee’s recommendation of TO/B was liable to be set aside for arbitrariness, procedural irregularity, or other reviewable error.

Whether the applicant’s claim for retrospective promotion was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Clause 10.7 of the Trombay Council Promotion Norms dated 20 March 2009 made candidates with specified additional qualifications eligible for consideration for promotion to TO/C, while permitting the Selection Committee to recommend promotion to one grade lower, TO/B; eligibility for consideration does not create an automatic entitlement to promotion.

Under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, an application must be brought within the prescribed limitation period, subject to the statutory provisions concerning delay.

The Tribunal also applied the rule that courts and tribunals do not sit in appeal over a competent Selection Committee’s assessment; intervention is limited to grounds such as mala fides, illegality, breach of applicable rules, or material procedural irregularity.

It relied on *Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan* and *M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission*, as quoted and reaffirmed in *Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir*.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s qualification and examination result made him eligible for consideration, but did not confer a right to promotion as TO/C.

His case had been considered by the competent Selection Committee, which recommended TO/B—a grade expressly permitted by Clause 10.7.

The Tribunal found no established breach of the norms, mala fides, discrimination, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity warranting interference, and held that it could not substitute its assessment for that of the Committee.

It also distinguished the cited Scientific Assistant cases because they involved a materially different promotional structure, and rejected reliance on an individual exception granted to another employee as creating an enforceable right to equal relaxation.

Independently, it held that the applicant’s grievance arose when he was promoted to TO/B with effect from 1 July 2009; his 2018 challenge, brought nearly nine years later without satisfactory explanation, was barred by limitation.

It also found the claim time-barred.

Both original applications—including the consequential pay-fixation claim—were dismissed, with no order as to costs.