Policy Decisions on Cadre Constitution and Recruitment Rules Fall Within State Domain and Resist Judicial Interference

The applicants, serving as Lower Division Clerks, Senior Accountants, and Junior Accountants in the Department of Telecommunications and Department of Posts, challenged the Recruitment Rules (RR) dated 02.04.2018 for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO).

Following the 6th Central Pay Commission, the JAO and AAO posts were merged into a unified IP Group ‘B’ Gazetted cadre.

The applicants alleged that the new rules prejudiced them by allowing "operational side" Group ‘C’ employees to compete for AAO posts through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), which they termed as "impermissible level jumping".

During the pendency of the case, the applicants moved an amendment application (MA No. 409/2025) to challenge the constitutionality of the entire RRs.

1. Whether the inclusion of operational side employees in the feeder cadre for AAO posts under the 2018 Recruitment Rules is arbitrary or unconstitutional.

2. Whether the modification of residency periods and the removal of the seniority-cum-fitness quota in the 2018 Rules are legally sustainable.

3. Whether applicants who participated in the selection process under the impugned rules are estopped from challenging said rules.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of Res Judicata and judicial consistency by following its own coordinate bench decision in OA No. 2275/2018, which upheld the same Recruitment Rules.

The State has the exclusive power to constitute cadres, prescribe qualifications, and determine promotion avenues as a matter of policy (P.U. Joshi Ors. v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 632).

The doctrine of estoppel prevents candidates from challenging recruitment criteria after participating in the selection process.

The Tribunal found that the 2018 Rules were finalized after exhaustive consultation with the DoPT, UPSC, and the Department of Legal Affairs.

Because the Department of Posts and Telecommunications are commercial entities with integrated structures, the inclusion of operational staff—who had been permitted to sit for accounts examinations since 1977—was not a novel or arbitrary feature.

The applicants cannot "pick and choose" parts of the Rules to challenge while seeking benefits from others.

The applicants failed to provide any distinguishing factors from the earlier decision in OA No. 2275/2018, where the Tribunal had already held that the 2018 Rules expanded rather than restricted promotional opportunities.

Since some applicants had already participated in the LDCEs of 2022 and 2024, their challenge was deemed barred by estoppel.

The Original Application (OA 2134/2018) and the amendment application (MA 409/2025) were dismissed as devoid of merit. All other pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.