Employees ineligible on the crucial date cannot claim retrospective promotion solely due to delayed trade tests or DPCs.

The applicants were employed in the Military Engineer Services as Mate (Semi-Skilled) and claimed promotion to FGM (Skilled) and Electrician (Skilled), respectively.

Applicant No. 1 was appointed on 18.04.2013 and Applicant No. 2 on 02.04.2013.

Under the applicable Recruitment Rules, promotion required three years’ regular service in the feeder grade and passing the prescribed trade test.

Both applicants passed the trade test on 28.09.2016 and were eventually promoted prospectively by order dated 27.01.2021.

During the proceedings, the applicants produced a year-wise select panel dated 18.06.2019, showing that in an earlier delayed promotion exercise, seniority had been assigned with reference to the relevant panel years.

Whether the applicants were entitled to promotion to FGM (Skilled) and Electrician (Skilled) with effect from 18.04.2016 and 02.04.2016, respectively, despite having passed the prescribed trade test only on 28.09.2016?

Whether the applicants’ seniority in the Skilled grade required reconsideration with reference to their consideration against the 2017–18 panel and the year-wise select panel dated 18.06.2019?

Whether, upon such reconsideration, the applicants were entitled to consequential consideration for promotion to the next higher grade, subject to fulfilment of the applicable eligibility conditions?

The Tribunal applied the applicable Recruitment Rules and SRO No. 204 dated 12.09.1991, under which promotion from the feeder grade required completion of three years’ continuous service and qualification in the prescribed trade test as on the relevant crucial date, namely 1 April of the DPC year.

It also considered the DoPT instructions governing timely convening of DPCs and the procedure for delayed, year-wise DPCs, particularly paragraph 6.4.4 of the DoPT O.M. dated 10.04.1989, under which promotions arising from delayed DPCs ordinarily operate prospectively.

The Tribunal further applied the principle of administrative consistency: employees similarly situated and governed by the same rules should receive similar treatment, and any departure must be supported by an intelligible and legally sustainable distinction.

The applicants’ reliance on the DoPT OMs dated 08.09.1998 and 27.10.2016, and on decisions concerning administrative delay, did not displace the requirement that eligibility be established under the governing rules as on the prescribed crucial date.

The Tribunal held that the applicants could not be treated as eligible for the 2016–17 DPC because they had not satisfied all mandatory conditions as on 01.04.2016.

Their requisite service had not been completed by the crucial date and neither applicant had passed the trade test until 28.09.2016.

Administrative delay in holding the trade test could not permit the Tribunal to deem a mandatory eligibility condition as fulfilled retrospectively.

However, the respondents themselves accepted that the applicants were eligible for, and were considered against, the 2017–18 panel.

The year-wise select panel dated 18.06.2019 therefore raised a legitimate question whether the applicants had been treated consistently with employees whose seniority had previously been fixed with reference to their respective panel years.

The Tribunal declined to grant automatic seniority from any specified date because the record did not establish that all employees in the earlier panel were identical in their eligibility, governing rules, and administrative circumstances.

It consequently directed the competent authority to examine the applicants’ claim, the basis of the earlier seniority fixation, and whether any legally sustainable distinction existed.

The claim for retrospective promotion to FGM (Skilled) and Electrician (Skilled) with effect from 18.04.2016 and 02.04.2016 was rejected because the applicants had not fulfilled the prescribed eligibility requirements as on the crucial date for the 2016–17 DPC.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicants’ seniority in the Skilled grade with reference to the 2017–18 panel and specifically examine the year-wise select panel dated 18.06.2019.

If the applicants were found similarly situated with the employees covered by that panel, they were to receive the same treatment, along with consequential consideration for further promotion subject to the applicable eligibility conditions.

The competent authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

No order as to costs was made.