Promotions granted under a subsequently abeyed circular cannot be retrospectively cancelled.

The applicants, railway employees, challenged the promotion of their juniors belonging to reserved categories under Railway Board Establishment Circular (“RBE”) No. 126/2010 dated 1 September 2010.

The respondents admitted that the promotions had been made by applying the reservation policy under RBE No. 126/2010, but submitted that the promotions had already been implemented before RBE No. 117/2016 dated 30 September 2016 was issued keeping the earlier circular in abeyance.

RBE No. 126/2010 itself provided that employees already promoted under it should not be reverted.

The applicants therefore sought relief against the promotions of their juniors.

Whether promotions already granted under RBE No. 126/2010 before 30 September 2016 could be cancelled, recalled, or otherwise invalidated after RBE No. 117/2016 placed that circular in abeyance?

Whether RBE No. 117/2016 operated retrospectively so as to undo promotions made before its issuance, despite the protective clause in RBE No. 126/2010 against reversion?

Whether the promotions made under the then-operative reservation instructions could be treated as unlawful or non est merely because the legal position concerning reservation in promotion was under judicial consideration?

The Tribunal applied the principle that an executive instruction subsequently modified, withdrawn, or kept in abeyance ordinarily operates prospectively and cannot retrospectively take away rights or benefits already accrued, unless retrospective operation is expressly authorised.

RBE No. 126/2010 governed the adjustment of SC/ST candidates promoted on their own merit against unreserved roster points and expressly stipulated that staff already promoted should not be reverted.

RBE No. 117/2016 merely kept RBE No. 126/2010 in abeyance with immediate effect and contained no direction to cancel or review completed promotions.

The Tribunal also referred to Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution and the decisions in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396, and B.K. Pavitra (II) v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129, recognising that the constitutional and legal validity of reservation in promotion had been examined in evolving judicial proceedings and could not automatically justify retrospective invalidation of completed promotions.

The Tribunal held that the phrase “kept in abeyance” in RBE No. 117/2016 ordinarily affected the future operation of RBE No. 126/2010 and did not erase actions already completed under the earlier circular.

Since the impugned promotions had been granted before 30 September 2016, and RBE No. 117/2016 neither expressly nor by necessary implication directed their cancellation, the promotions could not be retrospectively reopened.

Such a construction would both give impermissible retrospective effect to RBE No. 117/2016 and nullify the express protection against reversion contained in RBE No. 126/2010.

The fact that the reservation policy was under challenge, or that subsequent judicial developments questioned aspects of the policy, did not by itself render promotions already made under the prevailing instructions void.

It held that promotions validly granted under RBE No. 126/2010 before its being kept in abeyance could not be retrospectively cancelled or treated as non est in the absence of an express legal direction to that effect.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.