Prior service cannot be ignored for promotion eligibility merely due to mutual transfer.

The applicant, Akash Baliyan, joined the O/o Principal Accountant General (A&E), Meghalaya, Shillong on 03.07.2015 as a Data Entry Operator and completed probation on 04.07.2017.

He qualified the Preliminary Test for Subordinate Accounts Service (SAS) Examination, and its result was declared on 31.05.2019.

For promotion to Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO), an employee must clear nine papers of the SAS Main Examination.

The applicant cleared eight out of nine papers between November 2019 and May 2023, with only PC-14 remaining.

On 07.11.2024, the applicant transferred on a mutual basis to the O/o Principal Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, Chandigarh.

Mutual transfer guidelines state that "number of chances already availed to pass the said examination in the previous office, along with the exemptions... would be carried forwarded in the new office" but "the requisite length of service for promotion to the next higher grade would be required in the new office i.e. two years of service as Accountant".

The applicant requested permission to appear in the SAS Examination in December 2024 for PC-14 (representation dated 19.11.2024), which was rejected on 11.12.2024.

A subsequent representation on 29.01.2025 was also rejected on 17.03.2025.

The rejections were based on the ground that the applicant had not completed three years of service in the Chandigarh office, as purportedly required under Para 9.2.6 of MSO (Admn) Volume-I.

The respondents asserted that the applicant had accepted mutual transfer terms, including the three-year service requirement in the new office for SAS eligibility.

They contended that the applicant had not challenged Para 9.2.6 of CAG MSO (Admn.) Vol-I.

By interim order dated 15.04.2025, the applicant was allowed to provisionally appear in the PC-14 paper.

The result, placed before the Tribunal on 19.01.2026, showed the applicant "Passed" the PC-14 paper and achieved a final status of "Passed" in the SAS examination.

The respondents had earlier challenged a similar decision in *Amit Lather vs. Comptroller and Auditor General of India*, but the Hon’ble High Court dismissed their CWP (CWP-26349-2025 (O&M) decided on 08.09.2025), affirming the Tribunal's order.

Whether the applicant, having cleared eight out of nine SAS papers at his previous posting, could be denied permission to appear in the last remaining paper solely for not completing three years of continuous service in the new office after a mutual transfer, based on Para 9.2.6 of CAG MSO (Admn.) Vol-I.

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, pertaining to Original Applications.

It relied on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, affirming the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness in public employment and the fundamental right to be considered for promotion.

Key precedents applied included *Union of India v. C.N. Ponnappan* (1996) 1 SCC 524 and *M.M. Thomas & Ors. vs. Union of India & ors.* (2017) 13 SCC 722, which established that service rendered at a previous station or acquired experience cannot be ignored for promotion eligibility or other benefits upon transfer, even if seniority is re-fixed.

The court also referenced *Chairman Railway Board vd. C.R. Rangadhamaiah* and *State of Gujarat vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni* for the principle that accrued service benefits cannot be taken away retrospectively or arbitrarily.

The non-speaking nature of administrative orders, as contrary to principles in *S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India* and *Siemens Engineering vs. Union of India*, was also a guiding principle.

The judgment in *Amit Lather vs. Comptroller and Auditor General of India* (OA No. 60/241/2019, decided on 18.12.2024, affirmed by Hon'ble High Court on 08.09.2025) was considered a binding precedent.

The Tribunal found that the rejection of the applicant's request was based solely on the respondents' interpretation of Para 9.2.6 of MSO (Admn.) Vol-I, which mandates three years of continuous service in a field office.

However, the Tribunal observed that the applicant had successfully completed probation and cleared eight out of nine SAS papers prior to his mutual transfer.

The Mutual Transfer Guidelines themselves explicitly provided for carrying forward examination attempts and exemptions.

The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments in *C.N. Ponnappan* and *M.M. Thomas*, which unequivocally state that past service and acquired experience cannot be ignored for eligibility purposes merely due to transfer.

It further noted that the issue was "res integra" due to its own previous decision in *Amit Lather*, where a similarly situated employee was allowed to appear in remaining papers despite reliance on Para 9.2.6, and this decision had been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court.

Denying the applicant the opportunity to clear the last paper after having cleared eight papers would effectively nullify his accrued credits and was deemed arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 16.

The impugned orders were also criticized for being non-speaking and failing to address the specific facts, the carry-forward clause, or the applicant's advanced stage in the examination process.

The respondents failed to demonstrate any administrative prejudice by allowing the applicant to clear the last paper.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure A-2) and 17.03.2025 (A-1).

The interim order dated 15.04.2025, which allowed the applicant to provisionally appear in the PC-14 paper, was made final.

As the applicant had passed the PC-14 paper and cleared all requisite SAS Examination papers, the respondents were directed to forthwith consider his case for promotion to the post of AAO from the due date, as per rules, and grant all consequential benefits.

The Original Application stood disposed of.