Existing feeder-cadre employees retain prior promotional eligibility when revised rules adversely alter qualifying service.

The 31 applicants were Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs) in the Mechanical, Ammunition and Explosives, and Design cadres of the Naval Armament Inspection Organisation.

They challenged the rejection order dated 6 March 2025 and the Indian Navy Naval Armament Inspectorate (Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2024, notified on 11 November 2024, insofar as the Rules governed promotion from CTO to Senior Technical Officer (STO).

Under the 1995 Recruitment Rules, promotion to STO was available either after eight years’ regular service as CTO or after eight years’ combined regular service as CTO and Senior Foreman/Chief Draughtsman, including at least three years as CTO.

The 2024 Rules retained the requirement of eight years’ regular service as CTO but removed the alternative combined-service route and added mandatory training requirements.

The applicants contended that the removal of the alternative route adversely affected existing CTOs, many of whom had already acquired or were nearing eligibility under the earlier Rules, and that no saving or protection clause had been incorporated.

The respondents maintained that the primary requirement of eight years’ service as CTO had remained unchanged and that no protection clause was necessary because the applicants had no vested right to promotion.

The Tribunal also considered the applicants’ pending miscellaneous application seeking forfeiture of the respondents’ right to file a reply; that application was rendered infructuous after the respondents filed their replies.

Whether the deletion of the alternative combined-service eligibility route under the 2024 Recruitment Rules adversely altered the promotional eligibility of existing CTOs and consequently required incorporation of a protection or saving clause under the DoP&T instructions.

Whether the impugned Recruitment Rules and the rejection order dated 6 March 2025 were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the applicants’ right to fair consideration for promotion under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the applicants were entitled to consideration for promotion to STO by applying the existing eligibility conditions under the earlier Recruitment Rules, together with notional consequential benefits.

Whether M.A. No. 442/2026 seeking forfeiture of the respondents’ right to file a reply survived for adjudication.

The Tribunal proceeded under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning applications for redressal of service grievances.

It applied the principle in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, AIR 1983 SC 852, that vacancies arising before amendment of recruitment rules are to be governed by the earlier rules.

Relying on A. Satyanarayana, as followed in OA No. 345/2023, the Tribunal reaffirmed that although there is no fundamental right to promotion, there is a legal and constitutional right to be considered for promotion, and promotional avenues cannot be wholly nullified in a manner offending Article 16.

It also referred to Dwarka Prasad v. Union of India, 2004 (1) ATJ (SC) 591, on the right to fair and equal consideration for promotion.

The DoP&T OM dated 31 December 2010, particularly paragraph 3.1.3, provides that where eligibility service is enhanced and the change adversely affects existing regular incumbents in the feeder grade, the existing eligibility service may be retained through an appropriate protection clause.

Paragraph 6 of the DoP&T OM dated 20 September 2022 similarly requires consideration of a suitable protection clause where amended statutory recruitment rules adversely affect existing incumbents by changing promotional eligibility.

The Tribunal also followed the Coordinate Bench’s decision in Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. ESIC & Ors., OA No. 1472/2024, decided on 13 February 2026, which directed incorporation of an appropriate protection clause to preserve existing promotional avenues.

The Tribunal held that, although the basic requirement of eight years’ service as CTO remained unchanged, the 2024 Rules removed the alternative route that permitted employees to rely on combined service as CTO and Senior Foreman/Chief Draughtsman.

This removal deprived existing CTOs of the benefit of service already rendered in feeder grades and postponed, or in some cases effectively extinguished, their opportunity for consideration before retirement.

The Tribunal treated this as an adverse alteration of promotional eligibility falling within the protective principle in the DoP&T OMs.

It rejected the respondents’ contention that eligibility under the old Rules created no enforceable right, observing in substance that the applicants were not claiming an automatic right to promotion but protection of their right to be considered under the applicable eligibility framework.

The absence of a protection clause, despite the adverse effect on existing regular CTOs, was therefore found to be discriminatory, arbitrary, mala fide, and illegal.

The Tribunal further relied on judicial discipline and the Coordinate Bench’s decision in Rajesh Kumar to conclude that the applicants’ existing promotional avenue had to be preserved.

Since the respondents had filed both short and detailed replies, the miscellaneous application seeking forfeiture of their right to reply no longer survived.

It also quashed Clause 11 of the Schedule to the 2024 Recruitment Rules, to the extent that it required eight years’ regular service exclusively in the CTO grade for promotion to STO in the Mechanical, Ammunition and Explosives, and Design cadres, qua the applicants.

In the absence of an express protection clause in the amended Rules, the Tribunal directed that the DoP&T OMs dated 31 December 2010 and 20 September 2022 would operate in their place.

The respondents were directed to extend the requisite relaxation and consider the applicants for promotion to STO, along with notional consequential benefits in accordance with law, within four months from receipt of the certified order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, including M.A. No. 442/2026, were disposed of; there was no order as to costs.