Eligibility tests for promotion do not alter inter-se seniority unless expressly mandated by statutory rules.

The petitioners were appointed as Havildar (GD) in the Tripura State Rifles (TSR) in the year 2000

In the Final Seniority List dated 09.11.2021, Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 were placed at serial numbers 45 and 63, respectively

In December 2022, the respondents promoted several individuals junior to the petitioners to the post of Naib-Subedar (GD) on a temporary basis, while the petitioners were denied promotion

The respondents justified this exclusion on the grounds that the petitioners had failed a singular event in the 2010 Cadre Course and were not included in the "Approved List-D" of 2010

Although the petitioners successfully cleared the Cadre Course in 2011, the state contended they remained ineligible for the 2022 promotion cycle because they were "failed candidates" of the 2010 batch

The petitioners challenged the seniority list and the promotion order as arbitrary and violative of Article 14

1. Whether the denial of promotion to the petitioners, despite their seniority and subsequent passing of the Cadre Course, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?

2. Whether Rule 5 of the Tripura State Rifles (Discipline, Control, Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1986, mandates the passing of a Cadre Course for promotion from Havildar (GD) to Naib-Subedar (GD)?

The Court primarily applied Rule 5 of the Tripura State Rifles (Discipline, Control, Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1986, which governs the eligibility and service conditions for TSR personnel

The Court further relied on the constitutional principle of equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that administrative actions must be reasonable and consistent with statutory rules

Additionally, the Court applied the legal principle that an eligibility test (Cadre Course) serves only to qualify a candidate and does not, unless expressly stated by rule, reset or alter established inter-se seniority

The Court observed that Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules does not actually prescribe the passing of a Cadre Course as a prerequisite for promotion to Naib-Subedar (GD), rendering the respondents' reliance on the 2010 "Approved List-D" legally baseless

Even assuming such a requirement existed, the Court found it "inexplicable" and "distressing" that the respondents ignored the petitioners' successful completion of the course in 2011 while conducting promotions eleven years later in 2022

The Court reasoned that once the petitioners cleared the eligibility test in 2011, they became equally eligible alongside those who passed in 2010

It was held that an eligibility test is merely a threshold; it does not authorize the administration to promote juniors over seniors who have achieved the requisite qualification long before the promotion exercise commenced

It held that the non-consideration of the petitioners was arbitrary and illegal

The Court directed the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to reconsider the petitioners' cases strictly in accordance with the rules within three months

The Court further ordered that if found eligible, the petitioners must be granted promotion retrospectively from 09.12.2022 with all consequential benefits and their seniority vis-à-vis their juniors must be maintained in the higher post