Promotions under the Limited Flexible Complementing System require strict adherence to mandatory minimum qualifying merit thresholds.

The Applicant, a retired Technical Officer-C (TO-C) from the Proof & Experimental Establishment (PXE), Chandipur, sought retrospective promotion to the rank of TO-C effective from 01.09.2012

In the second round (O.A. No. 1096/2014), the Tribunal quashed a prior rejection because it was issued by an incompetent authority and lacked transparency regarding the merit list and marks

Following that order, the Respondents issued a fresh speaking order on 24.10.2019 again denying the promotion

The Applicant challenged this order, alleging he was discriminated against by being forced to face an assessment board in Hyderabad (Instrumentation) while others were assessed at PXE (Mechanical), and claimed the 30% promotion quota under the Limited Flexible Complementing System (LFCS) was misapplied at the laboratory level

1. Whether the rejection order dated 24.10.2019 was passed by a competent authority in compliance with previous Tribunal directions

2. Whether the Applicant was illegally discriminated against by being assessed by a subject-specific board at a different location (Hyderabad)

3. Whether the Applicant met the mandatory qualifying criteria for promotion to TO-C under the DRTC Rules, 2000

The court primarily applied Rule 6 of the Defence Research and Development Technical Cadre (DRTC) Rules, 2000, published via SRO-296

This rule establishes the Limited Flexible Complementing System (LFCS), a merit-based promotion scheme distinct from vacancy-based systems

Promotion to TO-C is limited to 30% of the total eligible candidates at the DRDO organizational level, not the individual laboratory level

Mandatory qualifying criteria require a candidate to secure at least 75% marks in the interview and at least 75% in the combined average of the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) and interview marks

Regarding the location of the assessment, the Tribunal found that since the Applicant’s chosen subject was "Instrumentation," he was appropriately sent to the nearest subject-specific board at ANURAG-1, Hyderabad, whereas those assessed at PXE were evaluated for "Mechanical Engineering"

The data revealed that the Applicant secured 72.75% in the interview, which failed to meet the mandatory 75% minimum qualifying threshold

The Tribunal also noted that the private respondents secured significantly higher final scores (ranging from 86.85 to 87.72) compared to the Applicant’s final score of 79.43

Finally, the Tribunal observed that the impugned order was issued with the approval of the Chairman, DRDO, thus satisfying the requirement of being passed by a competent authority

The O.A. was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs