Promotions must follow the prescribed reservation roster without skipping an incomplete cycle.

The petitioner was promoted to Foreman in August 2005.

Under the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations notified on 2 May 1996, Foreman (Special) posts were filled by promotion from eligible Foremen, with a 13-point roster applied to the six-post cadre.

In March 2012, three promotions were made using the fourth roster cycle, including one promotion against an SC-reserved point.

At the time of the next DPC in April 2015, two posts were vacant; the petitioner stood second in the seniority list, while respondent No. 4 stood ninth.

The Board promoted respondent No. 4 against an SC-reserved point by applying the fifth cycle.

The petitioner’s challenge to that promotion and claim for promotion from 27 July 2015 came before the Court after his death; his wife and son were substituted as legal representatives.

1. Whether the Board could move to the fifth roster cycle before completing the fourth cycle when filling the vacant Foreman (Special) posts.

2. Whether the petitioner, as the second-ranked eligible Foreman, was entitled to promotion from 27 July 2015 instead of respondent No. 4.

The Court applied the Board’s Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for Foreman (Special), notified on 2 May 1996 and amended on 20 February 2010, together with the Board’s 13-point promotion roster.

Under the roster notes, roster points are followed in the prescribed sequence—vertically and then horizontally in an “L” shape—and a later cycle cannot be adopted before the applicable roster sequence is completed.

The Court also relied on Article 14 of the Constitution, holding that departure from the roster which denied an employee’s rightful promotion claim was arbitrary and discriminatory.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court found that the 2012 promotions had been made in the fourth cycle and that the roster sequence remained incomplete.

Accordingly, when two posts fell vacant in 2015, the Board was required to continue applying that cycle rather than jump to the fifth cycle; the roster did not permit the Board to fill the second vacancy on the basis of the fifth-cycle SC point.

Because the petitioner stood second in the seniority list and the posts fell to the unreserved category under the applicable sequence, the Court held that he should have been promoted instead of respondent No. 4.

The Board’s contrary approach violated the roster and Article 14.

The promotion order dated 27 July 2015 in favour of respondent No. 4 was quashed, and the Board was directed to promote the petitioner as Foreman (Special) with effect from that date, with consequential service benefits, including seniority and increments.

The Board was directed to complete the exercise within three months; unpaid promotion arrears would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until realization.

Benefits were to be released to the petitioner’s legal representatives.