Promotion claims post-retirement are impermissible; seniority claims require all affected parties.

The applicant, Arjun Singh Gehlot, was appointed as a Junior Engineer on July 31, 1985, promoted to Senior Technical Assistant (Mechanical) on November 16, 2005, and then to Assistant Engineer on February 24, 2009.

The Central Ground Water Board Assistant Executive Engineer Recruitment Rules, 2004, stipulated that 75% of AEE posts were to be filled by promotion, with 37.5% from Assistant Engineers with two years of regular service and a diploma.

Aggrieved by a promotion order dated January 11, 2008, promoting Assistant Engineers to Assistant Executive Engineer, the applicant and another filed OA No.19/2013, seeking to quash the DPC proposal and direct a review DPC for Assistant Engineer posts based on year-wise vacancies.

This Tribunal, on January 6, 2014, quashed the order dated September 14, 2012, and directed the respondents to conduct a review DPC for promotion to Assistant Engineer from Senior Technical Assistant after fresh determination of year-wise vacancies, flowing from AEE promotions, and consider the applicants with similar benefits.

To implement this judgment, Office Order No.208/2015, dated March 26, 2015, was issued, revising promotion dates for 25 officers, entitling them to notional pay fixation but no arrears until they assumed the higher post.

A revised seniority list for Assistant Engineers from January 1, 1996, to January 1, 2015, was also prepared and communicated to the applicant on June 25, 2015.

The applicant contends that these orders are not in accordance with the directions in OA No.19/2013.

He further alleged that certain SC candidates (serial nos. 18-21 in the order dated March 26, 2015) were juniors or not qualified as STAs for promotion, and that the Recruitment Rules of 1997 were incorrectly applied as they were never notified.

The applicant retired on July 31, 2015.

Whether the office order dated March 26, 2015, and the revised seniority list dated June 25, 2015, were prepared in accordance with the Tribunal's directions in OA No.19/2013.

Whether the applicant's claim for ante-dated promotion to STA in 1997, AE in 2001, and AEE in 2005 is valid.

Whether the promotion of SC candidates mentioned at serial no. 18-21 in the order dated March 26, 2015, is improper, given the applicant’s general category status and claim of their juniority.

Whether a new claim for promotion to STA from 1997, not raised in the original OA, can be entertained via rejoinder or written submission.

Whether the applicant, having superannuated, can claim promotion to the post of AEE.

The court primarily relied on the principle that seniority cannot be decided without impleading necessary parties who are likely to be affected by the order.

It also applied the legal position that a new case or prayer cannot be introduced through a rejoinder or written submission if it was not averred in the main OA.

Furthermore, the court considered the principle established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of West Bengal vs. Amal Satpathi [SLP (diary No.43488/2023), decided on November 27, 2024], that an applicant cannot claim promotion to a post after retirement.

The judgment in OA No.19/2013 directed "fresh determination of year-wise vacancies" and compliance with "applicable rules."

The Court found that the applicant's grievance regarding the seniority of employees at serial no. 18-21 in the office order dated March 26, 2015, could not be decided as these individuals were not impleaded as parties to the OA.

Furthermore, the applicant, belonging to the general category, could not claim parity with these individuals who belonged to the SC category, a point the applicant failed to satisfactorily answer.

The claim for ante-dated promotion to STA (M) in 1997, and subsequently to AE in 2001, and AEE in 2005, was initially not part of either the present or previous OA and was introduced only in the rejoinder or written submission, which is not permissible as per established legal principles.

The respondents had clarified that the review DPC for promotions to AE against vacancies up to December 31, 1997, was made as per the Principal Recruitment Rules, 1963, read with the letter dated March 21, 1989, and that the claim to promote only STAs to AE was baseless.

The court also noted that the seniority list was prepared in compliance with the judgment in OA No.19/2013 and the Principal Bench's judgment in V.P. Avasthi vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No.1168/1994).

Given the applicant had superannuated on July 31, 2015, he could not claim promotion to the post of AEE as per the Hon'ble Apex Court's ruling in Government of West Bengal vs. Amal Satpathi.

It held that the office order dated March 26, 2015, and the revised seniority list dated June 25, 2015, were not illegal.

The applicant's claim for ante-dated promotion to STA (M) in 1997, AE in 2001, and AEE in 2005 was found to be baseless and not substantiated.

The Court concluded that the OA was devoid of any merit.