Service in previous zones must be counted for promotion eligibility despite loss of seniority upon transfer.

The eight applicants are Tax Assistants (TAs) recruited between 2018–2020 in the Chennai Zone.

Respondent No. 6 (T.G. Rajaguru) joined the Chennai Zone in 2021 via Inter-Commissionerate Transfer (ICT) from Pune, whereby he accepted bottom seniority.

In 2015, new Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the post of Executive Assistant (EA) increased the qualifying service from 3 to 10 years.

To address vacancy backlogs, the Board, with DoPT approval, granted a One-Time Relaxation (OTR) on 29.12.2022, reducing eligibility to 6 years of regular service as of 01.01.2022.

By counting his prior service in Pune, Respondent No. 6 became eligible, whereas the applicants—despite being senior in the Chennai Zone—did not meet the relaxed 4-year minimum service required for seniors under the "senior-junior clause".

The applicants challenged the OTR and the subsequent promotion of Respondent No. 6.

1. Whether services rendered in a previous Commissionerate/Zone by an ICT transferee can be counted toward eligibility for promotion in the new Zone.

2. Whether the One-Time Relaxation (OTR) and the "senior-junior clause" (requiring a minimum of 4 years service for seniors) were legally valid and fairly applied to the applicants.

Rule 7 of the Central Excise and Customs Department Executive Assistant Recruitment Rules, 2015, which empowers the Central Government to relax rules for any class of persons.

Pratibha Rani & Ors. v. Union of India, which held that service in a previous region must be counted for eligibility for promotion, even if seniority is lost.

DoPT OM dated 31.12.2010 regarding the "Senior-Junior Clause" (Note 1 of the RRs), which allows seniors to be considered alongside juniors provided they meet a minimum prescribed length of service (two years less than the eligibility period).

R. Prabha Devi v. Government of India: seniority cannot substitute for statutory eligibility.

The Tribunal found that the OTR was a valid exercise of power under Rule 7, executed in consultation with DoPT and UPSC to address administrative exigencies.

Regarding the "birthmark" of ICT transferees, the court reasoned that while Respondent No. 6 lost seniority, his total service (since 2015) remained "regular service" applicable for promotion eligibility per established precedents.

The Tribunal observed that the "senior-junior clause" (clarified on 15.05.2023) required seniors to have at least 4 years of service to be considered alongside a 6-year-eligible junior.

Upon factual verification, the Tribunal noted that two applicants had not completed their probation, and none had reached the 4-year service mark as of 01.01.2022.

The applicants were "considered" but found legally ineligible, as seniority alone does not grant a right to promotion if the statutory qualification (even if relaxed) is not met.

It ruled that counting an ICT transferee's past service for promotion is legally mandatory even if they are placed at the bottom of the seniority list.

The court concluded that since the applicants failed to meet the minimum relaxed eligibility criteria of 4 years of service, their non-promotion was valid.

No costs were awarded.