Promotion to selection posts depends strictly on qualifying mandatory trade tests prescribed by Recruitment Rules.

The applicant was initially engaged as a Mali on a daily wage basis in 1985 and regularized in 1990

He sought promotion to the posts of Chaudhary and Supervisor, alleging that his juniors had been promoted while he was overlooked

The post of Chaudhary is a Group ‘C’ selection post governed by Recruitment Rules (RRs), which stipulate that 50% of vacancies are filled by promotion based on a trade test

The respondents contended that the applicant participated in trade tests conducted in 2005 and 2013 but failed to qualify

Specifically, in the 2013 test, the applicant secured 57 out of 100 marks and failed to meet the merit requirement

The applicant did not disclose his participation in these tests in his original application, nor did he file a rejoinder to the respondents' counter-affidavit

The applicant has since retired from service

1. Whether the applicant has a legal right to be promoted to the post of Chaudhary despite failing the prescribed trade tests.

2. Whether an employee can claim retrospective promotional benefits after retirement when the promotion was not effectuated during their service.

Recruitment Rules governing the post of Chaudhary, which define it as a "selection post" requiring five to eight years of regular service in feeder grades and the successful completion of a trade test

Principles of service jurisprudence regarding the right to be considered for promotion versus the right to promotion itself.

Supreme Court decision in Govt. of West Bengal and Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathy and Ors. (2024), which held that while consideration for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, there is no absolute right to promotion

Promotion is generally effective only upon the assumption of duties in the higher post

The Tribunal analyzed the eligibility criteria under the Recruitment Rules, noting that passing the trade test is a mandatory prerequisite for promotion to the selection post of Chaudhary

The evidence produced by the respondents showed that the applicant was given multiple opportunities to qualify in 2005 and 2013 but failed to secure the necessary merit

The Tribunal observed that the applicant suppressed the fact of his participation in these tests in his pleadings and failed to rebut the respondents' evidence via a rejoinder

Applying the law to these facts, the Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant failed the selection process, he could not claim promotion as a matter of right

Regarding the post-retirement claim, the Tribunal noted that since the applicant never assumed the duties of the higher post before superannuation, he was ineligible for retrospective financial benefits, consistent with the Amal Satpathy precedent

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not found suitable for promotion during his service and, having retired, could not seek retrospective benefits for a post he never occupied

No order was made as to costs