Promotion based on prior service in another Defence establishment is valid.

The applicant, C.R. Sureshkumar, was appointed as a Semi-Skilled Ship Fitter on April 30, 2014, and promoted to High Skilled Grade II Ship Fitter on January 1, 2021, after passing a Departmental Qualifying Test.

He passed the Departmental Qualifying Test for promotion to HS-I Grade with effect from January 1, 2026.

The next promotion to HS-I requires five years of regular service in the grade and passing the Departmental Qualifying Test, as per the relevant Recruitment Rules (Annexure A-1).

The applicant challenged the promotion of the 4th respondent, V.S. Preju, who was initially working at 4 BRD Airforce, Kanpur, and was appointed as a Semi Skilled Ship Fitter under the 2nd respondent on compassionate grounds effective June 18, 2014.

The 4th respondent had joined BRD Airforce, Kanpur as Civilian Fitter (SK) on December 1, 2003, and was promoted to HS-II on January 1, 2004, and HS-I on January 2, 2004, reportedly without following relevant Recruitment Rules.

The applicant claims the 4th respondent is junior to him, as evidenced by the seniority list (Annexure A-2) where the applicant is at Sl. No. 2 and the 4th respondent at Sl. No. 3.

The applicant submitted a representation (Annexure A-3) challenging the consideration of the 4th respondent for appointment as HS-I, arguing there is no transfer under the Recruitment Rules and that the 4th respondent should be considered a fresh candidate whose prior qualifications are not applicable.

The 2nd respondent's reply (Annexure A-4) stated that the 4th respondent was empanelled for promotion to HS-I, being eligible in all respects.

1. Whether the prior service and qualifications of an employee acquired in one Defence Establishment (Air Force) can be considered continuous and applicable for promotion in another Defence Establishment (Navy) following a transfer or compassionate ground appointment.

2. Whether the applicant, having accepted promotion based on relaxed norms due to the 4th respondent's qualifying service, can now challenge the 4th respondent's eligibility for further promotion based on that same earlier qualifying service.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles derived from the restructuring of the cadre of Artisan staff in Defence Establishments, specifically Annexure R-1 and paragraph 10(a) of Annexure R-1 dated April 16, 2014.

These documents clarify that the cadre of Artisan staff belongs to Defence Establishments generally, encompassing both the Air Force and Navy, and that service rendered prior to posting/transfer involving no change in trade/grade will be treated as continuous.

The court analyzed the applicant's contention that the 4th respondent's previous qualifications were not applicable after joining the 2nd respondent, considering him a fresh candidate.

However, the court referred to Annexure R-1 (Ministry of Defence Order No. 11(5)/2009-D(Civ.I) dated June 14, 2010), which states that the cadre of Artisan staff spans all Defence Establishments, including both the Air Force and Navy.

Crucially, paragraph 10(a) of Annexure R-1 (Adjutant General's Branch Order dated April 16, 2014) explicitly states that "in cases where posting/transfer involves no change in trade/grade, the service rendered prior to such posting/transfer will be treated as continuous".

This directly contradicted the applicant's argument that the 4th respondent's appointment on compassionate grounds made him a fresh candidate and invalidated his prior service.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the applicant himself had benefited from relaxed promotion norms for HS-I because the 4th respondent, his junior, had passed the qualifying examination and completed the qualifying service.

By accepting this promotion without challenge, the applicant implicitly affirmed the validity of the 4th respondent's prior service and qualifications for promotion purposes.

Therefore, the court reasoned that the applicant could not now contradict his earlier acceptance and challenge the 4th respondent's consideration for promotion based on the very qualifying service that had previously aided the applicant's own advancement.

The application was dismissed, holding that the 4th respondent's prior service in the Air Force cadre, being within a Defence Establishment, was continuous and applicable for promotion within the Naval Shipyard, as per the rules on cadre restructuring (Annexure R-1).

The court also held that the applicant could not challenge the 4th respondent's eligibility for further promotion when the applicant himself had benefited from the consideration of the 4th respondent's qualifying service for his own promotion.

No order as to costs was made.