IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees on probation can be considered to be holding the post on a regular basis for the purpose of promotion eligibility, and their service during probation can be treated as regular service.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A. No.2211/2020. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners for antedating their promotion to the post of Manager (Technical), which was granted to them w.e.f. 01.01.2020, to 01.01.2019.

2. The brief factual matrix emerging from the record shows that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Deputy Manager (Technical) on 10.08.2015 and were placed on probation for a period of one year, which probation they successfully completed on 09.08.2016. When the petitioners joined service, they were governed by the NHAI (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 1996, (hereinafter `1996 Regulations'), according to which three years regular service in the feeder cadre of Deputy Manager (Technical) was prescribed as the eligibility condition for promotion to the post of Manager (Technical). This criteria for promotion to the post of Manager (Technical) was, however, amended by Regulations dated 16.05.2016 (hereinafter 2016 Regulations), vide which an employee was now required to complete four years service in the feeder cadre of Deputy Manager (Technical) as a condition for promotion to the post of Manager (Technical). On 12.10.2017, the Executive Committee of the respondent/NHAI took a considered decision to apply the 1996 Regulations to all such employees who were holding the feeder post of Deputy Manager (Technical) on regular basis on the date of the notification of the 2016 Regulations, vide which the criteria of service in feeder cadre was increased from three years to four years. Based on this decision by the Executive Committee, an order was passed by the respondent on 04.01.2018 directing that employees who were holding the feeder cadre post of Deputy Manager (Technical) on 16.05.2016 would be considered for promotion on the basis of the 1996 Regulations.

3. Since the petitioners were not considered for promotions despite completing three years of service on 10.08.2018, they made representations to the respondent inter alia stating therein that as they were holding the feeder cadre post on 16.05.2016, when the 2016 regulations came into force, they be considered for promotion to the post of Manager (Technical) on the basis of the 1996 Regulations. The respondents, however, rejected these representations on the ground that the petitioners, who were on probation as on the date of the promulgation of the amended Regulations, 2016, could not be presumed to be holding the post of Deputy Manager (Technical) on regular basis on 16.05.2016. The petitioners were, therefore, informed that they were not entitled to the benefit of the decision of the Executive Committee dated 12.10.2017 or the order dated 04.01.2018.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached the learned Tribunal seeking promotion to the post of Manager (Technical) under the 1996 Regulations. The Learned Tribunal has, however, rejected the petitioners' original application by accepting the respondent's plea that since the petitioners were on probation till 10.08.2016, they could not be treated as holding the post of Manager (Technical) on regular basis on 16.05.2016, when the 2016 Regulations come into force. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has proceeded to pass the impugned order on the basis of an erroneous presumption that the petitioners, being probationers on 16.05.2016, could not be treated to be holding the post of Deputy Manager (Technical) on a regular basis when the 2016 Regulations came into force. She submits that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that merely because the petitioners were o