Recruits from the same selection batch form a homogenous group entitled to equal career progression opportunities.

The five applicants were recruited as Technical Assistants "B" (Electronics) by the Space Applications Centre (SAC/ISRO) following Advertisement No. SAC:04/2004

Although they were part of the same selection panel as other candidates who joined before March 31, 2006, the applicants joined service between April and June 2006

This delay was attributed to the time taken for mandatory character and antecedent (police) verification, which was beyond the applicants’ control

During this period, the Department of Space (DoS) issued Office Memoranda (OMs) dated 03.02.2006 and 08.09.2006, which introduced a new career progression path

These OMs allowed recruits who joined before 01.04.2006 to choose between the old and new career paths, ensuring faster promotion (3-year residency), whereas those joining on or after 01.04.2006 were restricted to a slower path (4-year residency) with limited eventual growth

The applicants challenged these OMs as discriminatory

1. Whether the imposition of a cut-off date (01.04.2006) for determining career progression paths is arbitrary and discriminatory against employees recruited through the same selection process.

2. Whether candidates from a homogenous selection batch can be treated differently regarding career opportunities solely based on administrative delays in joining.

The Tribunal primarily applied Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment, prohibiting arbitrary discrimination within the same class of employees

It also considered the Department of Space’s Merit Promotion Scheme and Fundamental Rules (FR) 22 and 23 regarding pay fixation

The Tribunal further drew upon the legal principle established by the Government of India’s decision (dated 31.08.2023) regarding the transition from the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) to the National Pension Scheme (NPS), where the date of the recruitment process—rather than the joining date—was used to determine benefits for a homogenous group

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants and the candidates who joined before 31.03.2006 constitute a "homogenous group" because they were selected via the same advertisement, the same interview committee, and the same merit list

It noted that the delay in joining was purely administrative (police verification) and not attributable to the applicants

The court found that the OMs dated 03.02.2006 and 08.09.2006 created two distinct classes within the same batch, resulting in a "slower career progression" for the applicants compared to their batchmates, some of whom were lower in merit but joined earlier

Drawing a parallel to the OPS/NPS transition, the Tribunal held that a welfare state must ensure that a cut-off date does not lead to hostile discrimination among similarly situated persons

Consequently, the classification based solely on the joining date for members of the same recruitment batch was deemed a violation of Article 14

The court held that the applicants are entitled to the same career progression opportunities as those who joined prior to 01.04.2006 from the same selection process

The Respondents were directed to conduct an exercise to grant parity in career progression to the applicants within six months

No order as to costs was made