Retrospective promotions to fill pre-restructuring vacancies under old rules are upheld.

The applicants are direct recruits to the post of Inspector of Central Excise in the Lucknow Zone, having joined service between 2005 and 2009.

They challenged orders dated 19.09.2012 and 07.05.2013, which granted retrospective promotion to 495 and 32 persons, respectively, including respondents no. 7 to 9.

The applicants alleged that these promotions were based on a "pick and choose" method due to the non-maintenance of a vacancy register since 1986, in contravention of DoPT guidelines.

They also argued that the impugned order of 19.09.2012 was based on an incorrect sanctioned strength of 1,710 posts for the Lucknow Zone, whereas the correct pre-restructuring strength was 1,525, which was reduced to 1,161 post-restructuring.

The respondents contended that a post-based roster register had been prepared since 1997, serving a similar purpose to a vacancy register.

They further argued that the sanctioned strength of Inspectors was indeed confirmed as 1,710 pre-restructuring for the Lucknow Zone, based on a clarification from the Directorate General of Human Resource & Development.

The respondents also stated that pre-restructuring vacancies were filled by promotion due to a one-time relaxation by the Cabinet and in compliance with an Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment.

This judgment, later addressed by the Supreme Court in *D Raghu & Ors vs R Basaveswarudu & Ors* (2020), held that pre-07.12.2002 vacancies should be filled according to the 1979 Rules.

Whether the non-preparation of a vacancy register prejudiced the applicants' seniority.

Whether the sanctioned strength of Inspectors in the Lucknow Zone was correctly determined for the purpose of the impugned promotion orders.

Whether the retrospective promotions granted by the impugned orders dated 19.09.2012 and 07.05.2013 are permissible in law.

The court primarily considered the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group ‘C’ Posts Recruitment Rules 1979 (1979 Rules) and the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Inspector (Group ‘C’ Posts) Recruitment Rules 2002 (2002 Rules).

It also referred to the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) office memorandum dated 07.02.1986 regarding seniority principles and vacancy registers.

Crucially, the bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *D Raghu & Ors vs R Basaveswarudu & Ors* (Civil Appeal Nos. 1970-1975 of 2009), which addressed the filling of pre-restructuring vacancies as per the 1979 Rules and the principle of not disturbing settled promotions.

The principle from *Deepak Agarwal & Anr vs State of U.P. & Ors* (2011) 6 SCC 725, stating that a candidate has the right to be considered in light of existing rules at the date of consideration, was also noted.

The court found no prejudice to the applicants due to the non-maintenance of a vacancy register, given the one-time Cabinet dispensation in 2001 to fill all vacancies by promotion during cadre restructuring, prior to the applicants' recruitment.

Regarding the sanctioned strength, the court accepted the respondents' figure of 1,710 pre-restructuring, based on official confirmation from the Directorate of Organization & Personnel Management, noting that the respondents are the custodians of records and their due diligence cannot be easily challenged.

The court distinguished the applicants' contention regarding the Cabinet-sanctioned 18,053 posts, clarifying that this figure was for post-restructuring, whereas the promotions were for pre-restructuring vacancies.

On the issue of retrospective promotions, the court applied the principles from *D Raghu (supra)*.

While the Supreme Court in *D Raghu* initially noted that the Andhra Pradesh High Court erred in directing filling of pre-2002 vacancies under the 1979 Rules (since new rules were intended), it ultimately did not disturb promotions already made under the 1979 Rules due to the lapse of time and implementation of the judgment.

Analogously, the present promotions dated 19.09.2012, based on the 1979 Rules for pre-2002 vacancies, were deemed undisturbed by the *D Raghu* precedent.

The Tribunal also referenced its Principal Bench's decision in OA No. 2356/2025, which further fortified the stance against unsettling long-settled promotions made pursuant to departmental clarifications and judicial protection.

The Tribunal concluded that the non-maintenance of the vacancy register did not cause prejudice to the applicants' seniority given the one-time dispensation for promotions.

The determination of the pre-restructuring sanctioned strength by the respondents as 1,710 posts for the Lucknow Zone was upheld.

The retrospective promotions granted by the impugned order dated 19.09.2012, being consistent with the Supreme Court's non-disturbance of similar past promotions in *D Raghu (supra)*, were deemed permissible.

The OA was disposed of, with parties bearing their own costs.

The court noted that the respondents assured that the applicants' seniority was not impacted by the order dated 07.05.2013.