Prescribed annual cut-off dates for assessment-based promotion eligibility are mandatory and sacrosanct.

The applicant, formerly an Associate Professor at PGIMS Rohtak, was selected as an Assistant Professor (Nephrology) at AIIMS, New Delhi, via a 2014 advertisement

He was offered the position on 04.06.2015 and, following an approved extension, joined on 03.10.2015

Under the Assessment Promotion Scheme (APS), eligibility for promotion is determined as of June 30th of each year

Because the applicant joined after 30.06.2015, the Respondent treated his residency period as commencing from the 2016 cycle. Consequently, he was promoted to Associate Professor effective 01.07.2019 and Additional Professor effective 01.07.2022

The applicant sought to antedate these promotions to 2018 and 2021 respectively, arguing he should be treated as part of the "2015 batch" to remain eligible for the post of Professor alongside his peers

He further sought to count his past service at PGIMS Rohtak toward his residency period

1. Whether the "batch principle" and DoPT OM dated 06.06.1978 entitle the applicant to have his residency period for promotion counted from 2015 despite joining after the June 30th cut-off

2. Whether the applicant's prior service and grade at PGIMS Rohtak must be reckoned for determining the residency period required for promotion under the AIIMS APS

3. Whether the respondent’s refusal to include the applicant in the 2025 promotion list for the rank of Professor was arbitrary or discriminatory

AIIMS Assessment Promotion Scheme (APS), which stipulates that Assistant Professors must complete three years of regular service in the grade at AIIMS to be eligible for promotion, with the crucial date for eligibility being June 30th of the concerned year

DoPT OM dated 06.06.1978, which provides that seniority should not be depressed if a candidate joins within nine months, provided the context involves the "revival" of a lapsed offer

Precedent of AIIMS v. Ashima Nehra Wadhawan (2017), which allowed counting of past service only when pay and experience protection were explicitly granted at the time of appointment

K. Madhavan v. Union of India (1987), regarding the limited circumstances under which retrospective promotion may be granted

The Tribunal found that the APS residency requirement is predicated on "regular service in the respective grades in AIIMS"

Since the applicant joined on 03.10.2015, he had not completed the requisite service by the 30.06.2015 cut-off for that year's cycle; thus, his eligibility correctly commenced from the 2016 cycle

Regarding the "batch principle," the Tribunal noted that the applicant was recruited for a stand-alone post in Nephrology and failed to demonstrate that any junior in his specific department was promoted ahead of him

The Tribunal rejected the application of the 1978 DoPT OM, noting it applies to the "revival" of lapsed offers, whereas the applicant’s offer remained valid throughout his extension

The Tribunal distinguished the Ashima Nehra Wadhawan case, observing that the applicant’s appointment letter contained no stipulation for the protection of past work experience for promotion purposes, unlike the specific conditions present in the cited precedent

The "batch principle" does not override the specific residency requirements and cut-off dates of the APS

Past service in a sister organization cannot be counted unless specifically protected at the time of entry

No seniority-based discrimination occurred as no junior was promoted ahead of the applicant

All interim reliefs, including the direction to keep the applicant’s Professor interview results in a sealed cover, were vacated