Recruitment Rules are sacrosanct; violations lead to promotion on supernumerary post with notional benefits.

The applicant, Saudan Singh, joined Delhi College of Engineering (now Delhi Technological University - DTU) as a Library Attendant in 1997.

He remained in the same post for 20 years without promotion.

He became eligible for promotion to Counter Assistant in 2002 but was not promoted due to the non-constitution of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

The respondent-Institute filled some Counter Assistant posts on a contractual basis, ignoring eligible departmental candidates, including the applicant.

The applicant sought the implementation of an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 24.07.1990 regarding restructuring and revision of pay scales for library staff, which had been adopted by other institutions under the Government of NCT of Delhi, but not by the respondent-Institute.

The Board of Management (BOM) of the respondent-Institute approved library staff cadre restructuring on 07.02.2014, but consequential benefits were not granted to the applicant.

The pay scale for Library Attendant was Rs. 775-1150 (pre-revised), while Counter Assistant carried a higher pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 (revised Rs. 3050-4590).

The applicant received only one increment under ACP with Grade Pay enhancement from Rs. 1800 to Rs. 1900.

He also represented for benefits of the 4th and 5th CPC and ACP/MACP, but to no avail.

The respondents argued that DTU, established in 2009, is not automatically bound by policies applicable to government departments unless specifically adopted.

They stated the applicant was granted 6th and 7th Pay Commission and MACP benefits.

Promotions to Counter Assistant occurred in 2002 and 2004 without challenge.

Two Counter Assistant posts, earmarked for direct recruitment, were filled on a contractual basis in 2010.

The respondents claimed the applicant declined promotion opportunities in 2017 and 2025.

The sanctioned strength for Counter Assistant is 5, with a 50:50 ratio for promotion and direct recruitment.

1. Whether the respondent-Institute violated Recruitment Rules (RRs) by filling more than 50% of the Counter Assistant vacancies via direct recruitment, including contractual appointments?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to promotion to the post of Counter Assistant with consequential notional benefits?

The court primarily applied the principle that Recruitment Rules (RRs) are sacred and sacrosanct and must not be violated, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *K.K. Roy v. State of Orissa Ors.* (AIR 1960 SC 190).

It also considered Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the OA was filed.

The court found that the Recruitment Rules for Counter Assistant stipulated a 50:50 ratio between Direct Recruits and Promotees.

The respondents filled one post by direct recruitment and two others on a contractual basis "in the garb of direct recruitment," accounting for 60% of the five vacancies.

This action violated the prescribed 50% quota for direct recruitment.

The court emphasized that the violation of RRs is contrary to the settled principle in administrative law and service jurisprudence, citing *K.K. Roy v. State of Orissa Ors.*

Despite the respondents' claims that the applicant declined promotion on two occasions and that DTU was not automatically bound by previous OMs, the core violation identified was the breach of the clearly stated Recruitment Rules regarding the ratio of direct recruitment versus promotion.

The Tribunal concluded that the OA had merit and allowed it.

It directed the respondents to constitute the DPC and consider promoting the applicant to the next higher post of Counter Assistant, even if it necessitated creating a supernumerary post.

The applicant is entitled to all notional benefits, including seniority and fixation of pay and allowances, but without arrears of pay and allowances on the principle of ‘No work no pay’.

This exercise is to be completed within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

1. Whether the respondent-Institute violated Recruitment Rules (RRs) by filling more than 50% of the Counter Assistant vacancies via direct recruitment, including contractual appointments?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to promotion to the post of Counter Assistant with consequential notional benefits?

The court primarily applied the principle that Recruitment Rules (RRs) are sacred and sacrosanct and must not be violated, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *K.K. Roy v. State of Orissa Ors.* (AIR 1960 SC 190).

It also considered Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the OA was filed.

The court found that the Recruitment Rules for Counter Assistant stipulated a 50:50 ratio between Direct Recruits and Promotees.

The respondents filled one post by direct recruitment and two others on a contractual basis "in the garb of direct recruitment," accounting for 60% of the five vacancies.

This action violated the prescribed 50% quota for direct recruitment.

The court emphasized that the violation of RRs is contrary to the settled principle in administrative law and service jurisprudence, citing *K.K. Roy v. State of Orissa Ors.*

Despite the respondents' claims that the applicant declined promotion on two occasions and that DTU was not automatically bound by previous OMs, the core violation identified was the breach of the clearly stated Recruitment Rules regarding the ratio of direct recruitment versus promotion.

It directed the respondents to constitute the DPC and consider promoting the applicant to the next higher post of Counter Assistant, even if it necessitated creating a supernumerary post.

The applicant is entitled to all notional benefits, including seniority and fixation of pay and allowances, but without arrears of pay and allowances on the principle of ‘No work no pay’.

This exercise is to be completed within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.