Headline: Promotion based on a judicially recasted seniority list prevails over claims based on mere interim status quo protection.

Both applicants were originally selected as Law Assistants in 1997. Following a challenge in the Jabalpur Bench (OA 689/1997), the Tribunal ordered a recast of the panel by excluding 15 marks previously awarded for seniority, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in M. Ramjayaram.

Consequently, Ashok Kumar Jain was deleted from the panel while Girja Shankar Singh was included in the 2001 recasted list.

Mr. Jain obtained a status quo order from the Supreme Court in SLP 14300/2008, allowing him to continue as a Law Assistant.

In 2013, both appeared for promotion to Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) Group ‘B’. The respondents withheld one post pending the SLP outcome.

In 2019, the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP, protecting the appellants from reversion due to their long service but leaving the question of law open.

Mr. Jain later took voluntary retirement.

1. Whether Ashok Kumar Jain was entitled to regular promotion and seniority as APO despite his name being excluded from the 2001 recasted panel

2. Whether the respondents were justified in withholding the promotion of Girja Shankar Singh to the post of APO pending the litigation involving Mr. Jain

The court primarily applied the principle established in M. Ramjayaram v. General Manager, South Central Railway, which prohibits the awarding of marks for seniority in selections where merit is the primary criterion.

It further relied on the Supreme Court’s balancing act in S.N. Mishra & Ors. v. Union of India (Civil Appeal 6067/2011), which protected long-serving employees from reversion on equitable grounds while refusing to invalidate the recasting of seniority panels.

The Tribunal also noted that under Articles 14 and 16, a candidate included in a validly recasted panel has a legitimate right to be considered for promotion over those continued only via interim judicial protection.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Supreme Court protected Mr. Jain from reversion, it did not set aside the 2001 recasted panel or the Jabalpur Bench’s judgment which found his initial inclusion illegal.

Therefore, Mr. Jain’s continuance was merely a shield against demotion and did not grant him a right to seniority or further promotion over regularize candidates.

Conversely, Mr. Singh’s inclusion in the Law Assistant panel had attained finality through judicial orders.

Because Mr. Singh qualified in the A.P.O. written test and viva voce, and because the vacancy was withheld solely due to Mr. Jain's now-resolved status quo litigation, there was no legal barrier to his promotion.

It allowed OA No. 747/2016, quashing the order dated 11.04.2016 and affirming Girja Shankar Singh’s promotion to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) with instructions that he be allowed to continue in that post. All associated Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly.