Statutory reckoning of approved service governs LDCE eligibility, not merely actual date of appointment.

The applicant, a Cypher Assistant in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), challenged the UPSC’s final result dated 24.07.2013 for the Combined Section Officers’/Stenographers’ Grade ‘B’/Grade ‘I’ Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (SO/PS LDCE) for the years 2009–2011.

He contended that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were ineligible because they had not completed the requisite period of actual service in the relevant feeder grade, and that they were nevertheless awarded marks on the basis of ACRs/APARs relating to periods before their appointment in that grade.

The applicant claimed that, after excluding the allegedly inadmissible marks, he would have ranked above the private respondents and secured promotion as Section Officer.

The respondents maintained that eligibility was correctly determined under the applicable IFS (B) Rules and the notification dated 15.09.2012, and that UPSC had proportionately assessed the available service records under its established methodology.

Although the respondents raised limitation and laches, the Tribunal considered the matter on merits after noting the applicant’s explanation and the earlier withdrawn OA No. 88/2015.

Whether Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were eligible to participate in LDCE-2011 and LDCE-2009 respectively, notwithstanding that their actual appointments in the relevant grade occurred after the dates relied upon by the applicant.

Whether UPSC unlawfully awarded fictitious, notional, grace, or excess marks to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the basis of ACRs/APARs or service records for periods during which they were allegedly not borne in the relevant feeder grade.

Whether the applicant was entitled to consequential selection and promotion on the basis of his own calculation of the comparative marks.

The Tribunal applied Rule 13(2) of the Indian Foreign Service ‘B’ (Recruitment, Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1964, under which the prescribed portion of the promotion quota is filled through the SO/PS LDCE and the remaining quota through seniority subject to fitness.

It applied the eligibility provisions in the applicable examination rules and notification dated 15.09.2012, requiring approved and continuous service in the relevant feeder grades, subject to the proviso governing direct recruits appointed through a competitive examination, including an LDCE.

The governing statutory concept of “approved service” determines how service of direct recruits is to be reckoned and may differ from the date of their physical joining.

For service-record assessment, UPSC was entitled to follow the methodology of its Assessment Board, including proportionate enhancement of marks where reports for the full prescribed period were unavailable for an otherwise eligible candidate, consistently with the underlying principles of DoP&T’s OM dated 10.04.1989.

Judicial review of expert selection assessments is limited; interference is justified only where the assessment violates statutory rules, is mala fide, arbitrary, discriminatory, or rests on a demonstrably impermissible methodology.

Rajinder Singh Sehrawat v. Union of India & Ors., 93 (2001) DLT 417 (DB), concerning biased and unexplained adverse ACR entries, was held distinguishable.

Union of India & Ors. v. Vijender Singh & Ors., 176 (2011) DLT 247 (DB), concerning retrospective appointment, promotion, and cadre benefits, was also held inapplicable to the computation of approved service for LDCE eligibility.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s reliance on the respondents’ actual dates of joining was insufficient because eligibility had to be determined under the statutory definition and method of reckoning “approved service” applicable to direct recruits.

Respondent No. 3’s recruitment through CGLE-2005 and Respondent No. 4’s recruitment through CGLE-2003 satisfied the requirement that the competitive examinations had been held more than five years before the relevant crucial dates, while their approved service was reckoned in accordance with the applicable Rules.

The expression “approved and continuous service” could not be interpreted in isolation so as to override the statutory method for computing approved service.

On the ACR/APAR issue, the applicant relied principally on his own calculations and on DoP&T instructions without establishing that those instructions prohibited UPSC’s distinct Assessment Board methodology.

No original assessment material was produced to show that UPSC had fabricated reports, consciously granted fictitious marks, or acted outside its prescribed procedure.

Since the alleged ineligibility and excess marks formed the foundation of the applicant’s claim for promotion, failure to establish either defect defeated the consequential relief.

It further held that the applicant failed to prove that UPSC had awarded fictitious, illegal, or impermissible marks or that the final result dated 24.07.2013 was arbitrary or contrary to the governing rules.

The claim for consequential selection and promotion consequently failed.

The Original Application was dismissed, all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded.