Promotions are governed by recruitment rules in force at time of consideration, not date of vacancy occurrence.

The applicants were serving as Tax Assistants (Group ‘C’) in the Income Tax Department, having been promoted to the post on June 6, 2022

Under the erstwhile Recruitment Rules (RRs) of 2003 and 2007, the posts of Senior Tax Assistant (STA) and Office Superintendent (OS) were filled 100% via promotion

On September 20, 2024, the respondents notified new RRs which merged the STA and OS posts into a single cadre of "Office Superintendent"

These new rules introduced a Direct Recruitment (DR) quota of 70%, leaving only 30% for promotion

The applicants, who had not completed the three-year qualifying service for promotion by the date of the new notification, challenged the respondents' decision to fill vacancies that arose prior to September 20, 2024, under the new 70:30 ratio instead of the old 100% promotion quota

They further challenged an impugned clarification (FAQ) dated December 13, 2024, which directed that backlog vacancies be filled as per the amended RRs

1. Whether vacancies occurring prior to the amendment of Recruitment Rules must be filled according to the rules in force at the time of their occurrence or the rules in force at the time of consideration for promotion.

2. Whether the introduction of a Direct Recruitment quota and the subsequent diversion of backlog promotion vacancies to the DR category under the new Recruitment Rules of 2024 was legally sustainable.

The court primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2022), which overruled Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and established that there is no universal rule that vacancies must be filled as per the rules prevailing at the time of their occurrence; rather, they are governed by the rules in force at the time of consideration

The court further applied the principle from Deepak Aggarwal v. State of U.P. (2011) and Union of India v. Krishna Kumar (2019), stating that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion but no vested right to be promoted under repealed rules

Additionally, it referenced DoP&T OMs dated February 7, 1986, and August 13, 2021, regarding the carrying forward of unfilled vacancies to subsequent years

The Tribunal observed that upon the notification of the 2024 RRs, the erstwhile STA and OS cadres and their respective rules ceased to exist

Since the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the vacancy year 2025 was convened after the new rules took effect (crucial date January 1, 2025), the respondents were statutory bound to apply the 2024 RRs

The court rejected the applicants' argument that backlog vacancies retain their original character; instead, once carried forward, they merge into the current vacancy year's pool and are subject to the new 70:30 distribution ratio

The Tribunal further noted that the applicants could not "approbate and reprobate" by accepting the beneficial 3-year eligibility relaxation provided in the 2024 RRs while simultaneously rejecting the 70% DR quota prescribed by the same rules

The court found no evidence of hostile discrimination, noting that the rules were applied uniformly to all similarly situated employees and that all eligible candidates within the 30% promotion quota were duly considered

The court affirmed that the applicants possessed no enforceable right to claim promotion under repealed rules or to demand that backlog vacancies be filled exclusively through promotion

All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of with no order as to costs