Notes to recruitment rules cannot derogate from substantive eligibility or displace inherently qualified juniors.

The applicant, a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate, Cochin, joined as Havildar in 2014 and was promoted to LDC in 2019

He sought promotion to Tax Assistant under the Tax Assistant (Group-C Posts) Recruitment Rules (RR), which require eight years of regular service or eleven years of combined service

Five vacancies arose, and a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on December 27, 2023

The DPC recommended four seniors and Respondent No. 3 (Vinu P.S.), who was junior to the applicant but had completed the requisite 11 years of combined service

The applicant, who had not completed 11 years, invoked the "Note" in the RR (the Senior-Junior clause), which mandates that if a junior is considered, seniors who are not short of the qualifying service by more than half the period or two years shall also be considered

The applicant challenged the DPC results (Annexures A1 and A2) for excluding him while promoting his junior

1. Whether the "Note" regarding the Senior-Junior clause in the Recruitment Rules entitles a senior to override the vested right of a substantively eligible junior to be placed in the select panel

2. Whether the DPC is required to assess all seniors under the relaxation clause regardless of the number of available vacancies

The Tribunal applied the Tax Assistants (Group-C Posts) Recruitment Rules 2020/2022, specifically the relaxation "Note" to Column 11

It relied on the principle from Rai Sudhir Prasad v. State of Bihar and Saji C.M v. State of Kerala, which dictates that a "Note" to a rule is clarificatory and cannot derogate from or deface the substantive provision of the rule

It further applied the precedent from R. Prabha Devi & Ors. v. Government of India, which established that seniority is only relevant among eligible persons and cannot override or substitute for eligibility

Procedurally, the Tribunal followed DoPT OM No. 22011/2/2002-Estt(D) dated 06.01.2006, which allows a DPC to stop assessing candidates once sufficient suitable employees are found to fill the vacancies

The Tribunal found that the substantive portion of the RR defines eligibility as 11 years of combined service, a condition Respondent No. 3 satisfied, thereby acquiring a vested right to be considered

Conversely, the applicant’s right to be considered was "contingent," arising only through the relaxation "Note" triggered by the junior’s eligibility

The Tribunal reasoned that the DPC must first assess the eligibility of the junior; only then does the senior-junior clause extend the zone of consideration to seniors

However, seniority among such seniors only becomes relevant if vacancies remain

In this case, there were five vacancies: two were filled by those with 8 years of service, two by those with 11 years of combined service (including Respondent No. 3), and the remaining vacancy by a senior who also qualified via the relaxation clause

Following DoPT guidelines, once these five vacancies were filled by suitable candidates, the DPC was not legally required to assess the applicant

Seniority does not outweigh experience or eligibility, and a senior who qualifies solely via a relaxation clause cannot oust the claim of a junior who meets the substantive criteria

The Tribunal concluded that the DPC proceedings were in compliance with the Recruitment Rules and DoPT instructions

The Original Application was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated