Feeder-grade seniority does not automatically carry forward when promotion eligibility requirements are unmet.

The applicants, appointed to the Indian Ordnance Factories Service (IOFS) from reserve lists of the UPSC Engineering Services Examinations, were initially assigned JTS seniority according to their inter-se merit.

In the STS seniority list as on 1 January 2020, their positions were lowered relative to certain officers, and they alleged that they had not been considered for promotion alongside their batches because they had not completed probation.

The respondents maintained that probation ran from each applicant’s date of joining, that the applicants were not yet eligible for promotion when their batches were considered, and that the impugned list followed the applicable rules and instructions.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to retain their earlier JTS relative seniority when determining their STS seniority, despite not completing the prescribed probation period by the relevant promotion dates.

2. Whether the impugned STS seniority list was liable to be set aside because it allegedly contradicted the applicable DoPT instructions or contained anomalies in the applicants’ relative placements.

The Tribunal considered the IOFS Recruitment Rules, including Rule 10, which the applicants cited as prescribing two years’ probation for JTS officers, Schedule II, which they cited as prescribing four years’ JTS service for promotion to STS, and Rule 12, which provides for relaxation of the Rules.

It also considered DoPT Office Memorandum dated 11 November 2010 concerning inter-se seniority of reserve-panel candidates, and the applicants’ reliance on the memorandum dated 9 May 2012.

The Tribunal’s governing principle was that seniority in the feeder grade does not displace the separate eligibility conditions for promotion; reserve-list merit instructions do not, without more, waive those conditions or mandate automatic preservation of the same relative position in the higher grade.

No judicial precedent was cited or applied.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicants had been assigned JTS seniority by reference to inter-se merit, but held that this did not itself establish eligibility for promotion to STS.

Because probation commenced from each applicant’s date of joining, and the applicants had not shown that the respondents violated a statutory provision in applying the relevant eligibility conditions, their delayed consideration did not entitle them to automatic restoration of their former relative seniority.

The applicants also failed to establish that the 2010 memorandum required their earlier JTS positions to be carried forward into STS, that the 2012 memorandum applied to ESE candidates and conferred an enforceable right, or that Rule 12 required relaxation.

The alleged differences between the JTS and STS lists, without proof of breach of the governing rules or instructions, were insufficient to invalidate the list.

The Original Application was dismissed; any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.