LDCE quota vacancies cannot be curtailed by adjusting excess DPC quota from previous years.

The applicants are aspirants who appeared for the Postal Services Group 'B' Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for the vacancy years 2017-18, 2018, 2019 & 2020, conducted on 29.11.2020.

They contend that vacancies in the PS Group 'B' cadre should be distributed between the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and LDCE quotas based on a vacancy-based method, in compliance with directions from the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors v. Dr. R. N. Bhatnagar & Anr. (CWP No. 5893/1997 decided on 18.12.1998) and Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) O.M. No. AB14017/2/1997 Estt. (RR)/Pt. dated 19.01.2007.

The applicants allege that the respondents erroneously followed a post-based method, leading to excess recruitment in the DPC quota.

Following the dismissal of SLP No. 24725/2017 (Union of India & Ors vs. Konidela Remesh Babu & Ors.), which confirmed the necessity of a vacancy-based method, the respondents were required to make suitable adjustments.

However, the respondents arbitrarily adjusted the excess DPC quota by curtailing LDCE quota vacancies for 2017-18, making them nil, instead of adjusting excess DPC quota vacancies for later years (2018, 2019, 2020 & 2021).

Specifically, 102 already promoted officers were adjusted against 77 vacancies, representing 75% for DPC quota and 25% for LDCE quota for 2017-18, effectively eliminating LDCE vacancies for that year.

The applicants were aggrieved by the 3rd respondent's order to convene DPC for 2021 promotions under the 75% quota without finalizing promotions for LDCE aspirants for the years 2017-18, 2018, 2019 & 2020.

Whether the respondents' adjustment of excess DPC quota appointees for the year 2017-18 against the LDCE quota vacancies for the same year, thereby eliminating LDCE vacancies, was erroneous and in violation of established legal principles?

Whether the respondents should be directed to adjust the excess DPC quota appointees against DPC vacancies for subsequent years and declare the results of the PS Group B LDCE held on 29.11.2020 before convening the DPC for 2021?

The court primarily applied the principle established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar, supra, which mandates that the quota for departmental promotees and direct recruits must be worked out on the basis of roster points, considering vacancies that fall due at a given point in time, and not on a post-based method.

This principle was further reinforced by the DoP&T O.M. dated 19.01.2007, which directed all departments to modify Recruitment Rules in line with the revised vacancy-based policy.

The court also relied on the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in O.A No. 554/2013, which directed recalculation of vacancies in terms of Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar and the DoP&T O.M.

The subsequent confirmation by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 24725/2017, which clarified that existing promotions should not be disturbed, but future adjustments should be made in accordance with the impugned judgment.

The decision in Shri Swaraj Nair vs. Union of India & Ors. (O.A No. 180/00194/2023 dated 28.11.2025 by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal) was also cited as a directly relevant precedent addressing the identical issue.

The Tribunal noted that the issue involved was squarely covered by the decision in Shri Swaraj Nair, supra, where the Ernakulam Bench had similarly addressed the erroneous practice of the Department.

The court in Shri Swaraj Nair had specifically reasoned that the Department's adjustment of the entire vacancies for 2017-2018 in the DPC quota was a clear violation of the Supreme Court's order in Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar, which mandated a vacancy-based distribution, not a post-based one.

The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dismissing the SLP of the department, had clarified that while promotions already given may not be disturbed, future vacancies should be adjusted in accordance with the judgment (i.e., the Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar principles regarding vacancy-based quota).

Therefore, by making LDCE quota vacancies nil for 2017-18, the respondents acted in contravention of these explicit directions and the DoP&T O.M. of 19.01.2007.

Following the reasoning in Shri Swaraj Nair, the Tribunal confirmed that the 102 excess vacancies that arose under the DPC quota should be adjusted in the 75% DPC quota of subsequent years, allowing LDCE candidates to be promoted against their 25% quota (19% for Inspector Posts line officers and 6% for Clerical line officials).

This approach ensures that the "birth marks" on the posts, rather than persons, are respected, maintaining the balance between different recruitment streams.

The respondents are directed to adjust the 102 excess vacancies (2017-18) that arose under the DPC quota in the 75% DPC quota of the subsequent years.

Consequently, the LDCE candidates will be promoted against their 25% quota in the appropriate ratio of 19% for Inspector Posts line officers and 6% for Clerical line officials, by revising the promotion year of the DPC candidates promoted against those vacancy years.

This compliance must be effected within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

All pending M.As stand disposed of.