LDCE promotion is governed by competitive merit and cut-off marks, not minimum qualifying marks.

The applicant joined the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as a Trained Graduate Teacher in 1993, was promoted as a Post Graduate Teacher in 2000, and was selected as Vice Principal through direct recruitment in 2019. He was thereafter posted as Principal Grade-II at KV Siddipet.

Under the applicable eligibility conditions, a candidate for promotion to Principal through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) was required to have eight years’ combined regular service as PGT and Vice Principal, including two years as Vice Principal. The applicant became eligible from the vacancy year 2021.

KVS issued a notification dated 2 November 2022 for filling various posts, including Principal, for vacancy years 2018 to 2023. The notification covered 278 Principal vacancies in aggregate.

The applicant appeared for the LDCE and obtained 100 marks out of 180. He contended that the notification prescribed 40% as the minimum qualifying marks and that he had therefore qualified.

KVS published a year-wise merit list on 25 April 2023. Of the 278 notified vacancies, 167 were filled and eight were kept reserved due to court cases, leaving 103 vacancies unfilled.

The respondents stated that the examination was an LDCE, in which selection depended on the year-wise competitive cut-off and merit, rather than merely obtaining 40% marks. The applicant’s score of 100 was below the applicable cut-off of 120 marks for 2021, for which selected candidates scored between 120 and 133 marks.

The applicant sought a direction to carry forward the 103 unfilled vacancies and appoint him as Principal with seniority reckoned from 2023.

Whether the applicant was entitled to appointment as Principal merely because he secured more than the prescribed 40% minimum marks in the LDCE.

Whether the 103 vacancies left unfilled for the vacancy years 2018 to 2023 were required to be carried forward and filled by appointing the applicant.

Whether the applicant was eligible to claim consideration against vacancies for the years 2018 to 2020, despite becoming eligible for the Principal post only from 2021.

The Tribunal applied the KVS eligibility conditions and recruitment framework for the post of Principal, under which promotion through LDCE required eight years of combined regular service as PGT and Vice Principal, including two years as Vice Principal; on the stated crucial dates, the applicant was eligible only for vacancy years 2021 to 2023.

It distinguished a Limited Departmental Examination (LDE) from an LDCE: in an LDE, candidates meeting the prescribed benchmark may be promoted according to seniority, whereas in an LDCE, selection is competitive and based on merit and the applicable year-wise cut-off.

The Tribunal also considered the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 13 August 2021, which provides that unfilled direct-recruitment or promotion-quota vacancies are carried forward and added to the corresponding vacancies of the next year or subsequent years for determining vacancies to be filled in the next recruitment exercise.

The 40% benchmark in the notification was therefore not treated as the final selection cut-off for the LDCE.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s reliance on the 40% benchmark was misplaced because the notification concerned an LDCE, not an LDE.

Although he secured 100 marks, the relevant cut-off for the 2021 vacancy year was 120 marks, and the selected candidates had obtained marks ranging from 120 to 133. Accordingly, the applicant failed on merit and could not claim promotion merely by crossing the minimum qualifying threshold.

Further, he was not eligible for the 2018–2020 vacancies because he had completed the requisite two years’ service as Vice Principal only by 2021.

The Tribunal noted that the vacancies claimed by the applicant as unfilled related principally to earlier years, while vacancies for 2021–2023 had been filled or reserved for pending court cases.

Any vacancies remaining unfilled were to be carried forward in accordance with the DoPT OM for the subsequent examination, rather than being used to appoint an unsuccessful LDCE candidate.

His proposed seniority grievance was also rejected because he had not qualified on merit in the relevant LDCE.

The Original Application was dismissed for want of merit.

The interim direction requiring one post to be kept vacant was vacated, pending miscellaneous applications were closed, and there was no order as to costs.