Promotions must be governed by existing notified recruitment rules as draft rules lack legal validity.

The 20 applicants are Data Processing Assistants (DPA) Grade-A in the Electronic Data Processing (EDP) cadre of the Ministry of Defence, appointed between 1987 and 1990

Following the recommendations of the Sheshagri Committee and the implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, a seniority list was finalized on January 27, 2015, in which the applicants were placed senior to the private respondents (Respondents 3–20)

In February 2016, the official respondents issued a promotion panel and order promoting several juniors to the post of 'Programmer' while excluding the applicants

The applicants challenged this, alleging that the promotions were arbitrary and discriminatory, and sought a direction to be promoted on an ad-hoc basis pending the finalization of amended Recruitment Rules (RRs)

The respondents maintained that promotions were made strictly in accordance with the existing notified RRs (SRO No. 45 of 2001) and that the applicants did not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed therein

1. Whether the promotion of junior officials to the post of Programmer in exclusion of the senior applicants was illegal, arbitrary, or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

2. Whether vacancies must be filled according to the Recruitment Rules in force at the time of the vacancy or at the time of consideration

3. Whether draft Recruitment Rules have any legal validity in governing promotions

The Court primarily applied the Recruitment Rules notified via SRO No. 45 dated 19.02.2001, issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of India

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2022), which overruled Y. V. Rangaiah & Others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, establishing that government servants have a right to be considered for promotion according to the rules in force at the time of consideration, not when the vacancy arose

Furthermore, the court applied the principle that draft Recruitment Rules lack legal validity and existing rules remain binding until formally replaced

The Tribunal examined whether the respondents' actions deviated from the statutory rules. It noted that the promotions were carried out under the SRO No. 45 of 2001, which was the only legally valid framework at the time of consideration

The applicants’ argument that draft or amended rules should be applied was rejected because draft rules do not carry the force of law

Although the applicants were senior in the DPA (A) grade, seniority alone does not override the eligibility requirements set by the RRs

The court observed that the respondents promoted only those who fulfilled the specific eligibility conditions of the 2001 rules, thus negating claims of discrimination or arbitrariness

The Tribunal also noted that a similar challenge by similarly situated employees had already been dismissed in R. S. Rathore & Ors. v. Ministry of Defence, a decision subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court

The court concluded that the promotions were valid as they were made in strict consonance with the existing 2001 Recruitment Rules and that no violation of Articles 14 or 16 occurred

The prayer for promotion based on seniority in the absence of meeting eligibility under the valid RRs was denied

No order as to costs was made