Executive Instructions May Regulate Promotions During Transition Following Cadre Restructuring When Statutory Rules Become Unworkable

The applicants were appointed as Tax Assistants (TA) in the Directorate General of Performance Management (DGPM) during 2015–2016

At the time of joining, promotions to the post of Senior Tax Assistant (STA) were governed by the Recruitment Rules (RRs) of 2004, which required three years of regular service

However, following a significant cadre restructuring in 2013 and a merger of 18 Directorates into a common cadre in 2018, the respondents applied the Recruitment Rules of 2015 (meant for field offices) and later the RRs of 2022 to the applicants

These newer rules enhanced the qualifying service for promotion from three to ten years, rendering the applicants ineligible for promotion at the time vacancies arose

The applicants challenged the rejection of their representations, seeking promotion under the 2004 RRs

1. Whether the respondents were legally bound to apply the Recruitment Rules of 2004 for promotions in the DGPM despite intermediate cadre restructuring and merger of Directorates

2. Whether an employee has a vested right to be considered for promotion under existing/old rules when a cadre undergoes substantial reorganization and fresh rules are being formulated

3. Whether the absence of a "saving clause" in the new Recruitment Rules of 2022 rendered them arbitrary or unconstitutional

The Tribunal applied the principle that Recruitment Rules are statutory and do not cease to operate unless repealed, as per DoPT OM dated 06.09.2007

there is no universal rule that vacancies must be filled via the law existing on the date the vacancy arose; rather, a candidate’s right to consideration accrues on the date the consideration actually takes place under the rules then in force

while statutory rules generally prevail over executive instructions, administrative instructions can supplement or bridge gaps during transitional periods following massive cadre restructuring

The Tribunal reasoned that the cadre restructuring of 2013 and the subsequent merger of 18 Directorates in 2018 created a "substantial reorganization" where the old posts of STA and DOS ceased to exist in their previous form, becoming part of the new "Executive Assistant" (EA) cadre

The 2004 RRs had become "impracticable and unworkable" because they were designed for individual Directorates, whereas the new merged structure required unified rules

The Tribunal held that the respondents’ use of the 2015 Field Office RRs via an administrative letter (dated 17.07.2019) was a valid "interim administrative arrangement" to facilitate promotions during the transitional period

Since the applicants joined after the 2013 restructuring began, they could not claim a "vested right" to a promotional framework that was already in the process of being overhauled

The Tribunal further noted that specifying eligibility criteria is a policy matter for the rule-making authority and does not warrant judicial interference unless proven to be "manifestly arbitrary"

It was held that the 2004 RRs were no longer feasible for the reorganized cadre and that the subsequent RRs of 2022 were validly applied

The Tribunal noted that since the applicants had eventually been promoted under a one-time relaxation in 2024–2025, no further relief was required

No order as to costs was made