### Revised Promotional Guidelines Applied Prospectively; Cannot Retrospectively Alter Qualifying Standards for Past Examinations

The applicant, an SC category employee appointed in 1977, served as an officiating Junior Accounts Officer (JAO) from 2006

He appeared in the JAO Part-II qualifying examination in December 2012, securing 244/550 marks, but was declared unsuccessful for failing to meet the qualifying criteria

He had previously failed the same examination in 2006 and 2010

The applicant challenged the order dated 24.04.2017 denying him promotion, seeking retrospective application of relaxed qualifying marks introduced via revised guidelines dated 28.07.2016 and DoP&T O.M. dated 03.10.2000

The respondents contended that the 2016 guidelines were prospective and that the applicant had already failed despite existing relaxations

1. Whether the revised guidelines dated 28.07.2016, providing lower qualifying marks for SC/ST candidates, can be applied retrospectively to an examination conducted in 2012

2. Whether the applicant was wrongfully denied the benefit of relaxation under DoP&T O.M. dated 03.10.2000

3. Whether a retired employee maintains an enforceable right to seek promotion based on subsequent policy changes

The court applied the principle that rules of selection cannot be changed after the process has commenced, as established in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008).

It relied on Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) and P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka (1990) to affirm that vacancies are governed by the rules existing at the time of the examination.

Regarding retirement, it applied Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpati (2024) and Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das (2024), which hold that there is no fundamental right to promotion and that notional promotion for retirees is not automatic.

The Tribunal reasoned that the 2012 examination was governed by the rules and BSNL circulars (dated 12.10.2004 and 08.01.2007) in force at that time, which already provided specific relaxations for SC/ST candidates.

The 2016 guidelines explicitly stated they applied only to examinations notified after 02.12.2014; thus, retrospective application would violate settled service jurisprudence.

The court observed that the applicant failed the exam on three separate occasions (2006, 2010, 2012) despite these existing relaxations, indicating he did not meet the minimum standards even under the then-prevailing concessions.

Furthermore, since the applicant had already retired, and no wrongful denial of promotion during his service tenure was established, he held no surviving enforceable right to the relief sought.

It held that policy changes are prospective unless stated otherwise, and the applicant, having failed to meet the qualifying standards applicable at the time of the 2012 examination, was not entitled to promotion.

The impugned order dated 24.04.2017 was upheld as legal and non-arbitrary.

No costs were ordered.