Promotion denial based on unavailable posts, when junior was erroneously promoted, is unlawful.

The applicant, Prem Chand, was appointed as a Stenographer Grade III on June 15, 1987.

His immediate senior, Sh. Jasbir Singh, joined on June 6, 1987.

Both belonged to the SC category.

Smt. Indra Kataria, appointed later on August 18, 1987, was erroneously promoted to Stenographer Grade II on July 13, 1993.

To rectify this, a review DPC granted notional promotion to Sh. Jasbir Singh and the applicant as Stenographer Grade II w.e.f. May 31, 1994, at par with Smt. Indra, via an order dated March 3, 2010.

Eighteen additional posts of Stenographer Grade I were created, with two reserved for SC category.

A DPC held on July 19, 2000, recommended Smt. Indra Kataria for promotion to Stenographer Grade I in the SC category, despite her being junior to the applicant.

The applicant's name and Sh. Jasbir Singh's name were not considered.

One SC post remained unfilled.

The applicant filed a representation, and when no response was received, he filed O.A. No. 183/2012, challenging his non-promotion and potential reversion.

A review DPC was held on July 9, 2014, to rectify the exclusion of an eligible candidate from the July 19, 2000 DPC.

This DPC recommended Sh. Jasbir Singh for promotion to Stenographer Grade I Hindi.

The Tribunal allowed O.A. No. 183/2012, directing respondents to consider the applicant's candidature for promotion to Stenographer Grade I as per law, within four months, and not to revert him from Stenographer Grade II.

In compliance, the impugned speaking order dated October 10-17, 2015 (Annex.A/1) was issued.

This order stated that on recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, Stenographer Grade II posts merged with Stenographer Grade I w.e.f. January 1, 2006, and the applicant was in Stenographer Grade I drawing the pay scale, and had not been reverted.

The respondents also admitted that Smt. Indra Kataria was junior and erroneously promoted, and that in the July 19, 2000 DPC, she was promoted under the SC category.

They did not deny that Sh. Jasbir Singh was promoted to Stenographer Grade-I w.e.f. July 31, 2000, by an order dated July 25, 2014 (Annex.A/4), and Smt. Indra Kataria was reverted.

However, the respondents did not assign a reason for not considering the applicant's name in the review DPC of July 9, 2014.

Whether the impugned speaking order dated October 10-17, 2015, which denied the applicant promotion to Stenographer Grade I w.e.f. July 31, 2000, despite the Tribunal's previous directions and the promotion of his similarly situated senior, Jasbir Singh, was justified?

Whether the respondents' contention that the applicant was not eligible for promotion to Stenographer Grade I in 2000 because his Grade II promotion was notional in 1994, is acceptable?

Whether the merger of pay scales of Stenographer Grade II and Grade I w.e.f. January 1, 2006, after the 6th CPC recommendations, negated the applicant's grievance for promotion prior to that date?

The Tribunal applied the principle that an employee cannot be denied promotion when their junior was erroneously promoted and subsequently reverted, especially when a senior in a similar situation was granted promotion to rectify earlier errors.

It also followed the principle that an earlier promotion order, even if notional, establishes eligibility for subsequent promotions.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the employer to rectify their mistakes, even if it means creating a supernumerary post, to ensure eligible candidates are not prejudiced by erroneous promotions.

The binding nature of judicial directions to consider candidature for promotion was also a key principle.

The Court found that the respondents erred by not considering the applicant for promotion to Stenographer Grade I w.e.f. July 31, 2000, in the review DPC convened on July 9, 2014, thereby effectively disobeying the directions from O.A. No. 183/2012.

The DPC minutes of July 19, 2000, confirmed that one SC category post remained unfilled after Smt. Indra Kataria's erroneous promotion, demonstrating the availability of a post for the applicant.

The respondents had already rectified the error for Sh. Jasbir Singh, who was similarly situated to the applicant and his senior, by granting him promotion w.e.f. July 31, 2000.

The respondents' argument that the applicant was not eligible for promotion to Stenographer Grade I in 2000 because his Grade II promotion was merely 'notional' from 1994 was rejected, as the order dated March 3, 2010, explicitly promoted him to Stenographer Grade II w.e.f. May 31, 1994, making him eligible for consideration.

The argument that the merger of pay scales w.e.f. January 1, 2006, negated the applicant's grievance was also dismissed, as it side-tracked the core issue of promotion from an earlier date and his entitlement to the pay scale from that date, consistent with the treatment of Sh. Jasbir Singh.

The Tribunal held that the respondents had a continuous obligation to rectify their mistake, even if it meant creating a supernumerary post, rather than using the lack of post availability due to an erroneous promotion as an excuse.

The respondents are directed to grant the applicant promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade I w.e.f. July 31, 2000, in the reserved SC category post, and confer all consequential benefits granted to his immediate senior, Sh. Jasbir Singh, pursuant to the review DPC convened on July 9, 2014, provided he is not otherwise ineligible.

This exercise must be completed within three months from the receipt of the order.

There is no order as to costs.