Employees acquiring amended eligibility qualifications before promotion finalization must be considered through a Review DPC.

The 21 applicants were serving as Primary Teachers (PRTs) in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) and were eligible for consideration for promotion to Head Master on the basis of the seniority list as on 1 January 2025.

On 20 March 2025, the Recruitment Rules for Head Master were amended to make possession of a CTET certificate a compulsory eligibility condition.

During the promotion process initiated in September 2025, the applicants, who did not then possess CTET certificates, were not forwarded for consideration, while their juniors possessing the qualification were considered.

The applicants appeared for and qualified the next CTET examination conducted by CBSE in February 2026.

Although the DPC had allegedly been convened in October 2025, the respondents issued a notice on 9 June 2026 inviting choices of stations for posting on promotion, and no final promotion orders had been issued by the date of the Tribunal’s order.

Relying on its earlier decision in OA No. 2814/2026 dated 19 August 2026, the applicants sought consideration through a Review DPC.

Whether the applicants’ eligibility for promotion had to be determined solely with reference to the crucial date of 1 January 2025 under the DoPT Circular dated 22 June 2024, despite the Recruitment Rules having been amended on 20 March 2025 to introduce CTET as a mandatory qualification.

Whether applicants who acquired the CTET qualification in February 2026, before final promotion orders were issued, could be considered for promotion through a Review DPC in accordance with their seniority.

The Tribunal applied the principle that eligibility for promotion must be assessed with reference not only to the prescribed crucial date but also to the Recruitment Rules applicable to the relevant promotion process.

The DoPT Circular dated 22 June 2024, relied upon by the respondents, prescribed 1 January of the vacancy year as the crucial date for determining eligibility.

However, the Tribunal held that the crucial-date principle could not be applied independently of the Recruitment Rules in force and the stage at which the promotion process stood.

The Tribunal also relied on its earlier decision in OA No. 2814/2026 dated 19 August 2026, where, in similar circumstances, it directed the respondents to convene a Review DPC and consider employees who acquired the requisite qualification before the DPC process was completed.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ contention that the applicants were permanently disqualified because they lacked CTET on 1 January 2025.

It held that, on that date, the unamended Recruitment Rules were in force and the applicants would have been eligible under those Rules.

Since CTET was introduced only by the amendment dated 20 March 2025, the respondents could not simultaneously rely on the amended Rules to require CTET and insist that eligibility be frozen exclusively as of 1 January 2025.

The applicants had qualified the very next CTET examination in February 2026, and the promotion process had not concluded because, even after the station-choice notice issued on 9 June 2026, final promotion orders had not been issued.

Accordingly, the Tribunal treated the process as incomplete and found the applicants’ case materially similar to OA No. 2814/2026, warranting consideration by a Review DPC in accordance with seniority and the applicable Rules.

If otherwise eligible and suitable, the applicants were directed to be considered for promotion in accordance with the Rules.

The exercise was required to be completed within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

The OA was disposed of with no order as to costs.

MA No. 4278/2026 seeking preponement was also disposed of after the OA was taken up for final hearing with the parties’ consent.