No Retrospective Revision of Vacancy Positions for Promotional Examinations Conducted Prior to 2012

The applicant, serving as Superintendent of Post Offices, filed this Original Application (OA) seeking to set aside a revised notification dated 27.05.2011.

He requested the court to command the respondents to operate a select list dated 23.06.2011 against a 19% vacancy quota for Inspectors Post Line Officials by restoring vacancies initially declared on 06.04.2011.

The applicant further sought promotion to the cadre of Postal Service (PS) Group ‘B’ with consequential benefits.

During the pendency of the litigation, the applicant superannuated from service.

1. Whether the respondents can be directed to restore or re-assess the vacancy position for the year 2011 regarding promotion to PS Group ‘B’ in light of prior judicial precedents.

2. Whether any relief regarding promotion can be granted to the applicant following his superannuation.

The Tribunal applied the principle of stare decisis and territorial consistency by relying on the Patna Bench decision in OA No. 391/2018, which interpreted the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in SLP(C) No. 24725/2017.

That precedent established that judicial clarifications regarding Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE) applied from 2012 onwards and specifically protected existing promotions from disturbance.

Additionally, the Tribunal applied the rule established in Government of West Bengal others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi others (2024 INSC 906), which restricts the granting of certain promotional reliefs post-superannuation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims were based on a 2011 notification, whereas the governing Supreme Court clarification in SLP(C) No. 24725/2017 was intended for LDCE 2012 onwards.

The Tribunal reasoned that since the Patna Bench had already determined that vacancy positions for the 2011 LDCE could not be revised retrospectively, the same logic applied here.

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had already retired. Applying the precedent in Dr. Amal Satpathi, the Tribunal determined that once an employee superannuates, the requested relief for retrospective promotion and vacancy reassessment becomes legally untenable in the current context.

It held that no direction could be issued to revise the 2011 vacancy position retrospectively and that no relief could be granted to the applicant consequent upon his superannuation.

No order as to costs was made.