Administrative decisions affecting promotions must adhere to principles of natural justice; promotion cannot be revoked without a hearing, reaffirming employees' rights post-appointment.

Headnote:(A) Sashtra Seema Bal (SSB) Recruitment Rules, 2011 - Promotion - Natural Justice - Appellants challenged cancellation of their appointment as Sub Inspectors (Ministerial) under LDCE for 61 vacancies due to alleged irregularities in calculating vacancies. Petitioners, having completed probation, argued lack of opportunity for hearing prior to cancellation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that once promoted, benefits cannot be withdrawn without a fair hearing. Hence, cancellation order quashed and original merit list of 61 appointees reinstated. (Paras 1-38)

(B) Court’s findings include incorrect recalculation of vacancies post result announcement and the necessity of following due process for appointments. No fault was found with the 53 candidates appointed. (Paras 32-36)

(C) Court framed issues including violation of natural justice and administrative procedure in appointment cancellations. (Paras 28-36)

(D) Ratio decidendi: Court reiterated the significance of fair hearing before depriving an individual of their established post, stressing no administrative decision can adversely affect rights without due process. (Paras 30-36) (E)

Result: The order dated 17.07.2020 was quashed, ordering the continuation of 61 candidates promoted through the LDCE. (Para 36)

Table of Content
1. validity of promotions based on vacancy calculation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners' right to promotion and necessity of due process. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. natural justice in revoking promotions unlawful without hearing. (Para 10 , 14 , 15 , 22 , 30)
4. rule against promoting beyond advertised vacancies. (Para 23 , 34)
5. reinstatement of petitioners based on equitable considerations. (Para 36 , 38)

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. Aggrieved against the order dated 17.07.2020 passed by the respondents, whereby merit list of promotion of 61 candidates to the post of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) in Sashtra Seema Bal (SSB) vide order dated 02.03.2017, has been invalidated, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing thereof. Petitioners are praying for directions to respondents for permitting permit them continue on the post of Sub Inspector against the vacancies pertaining to the years 2016-17 with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts emerging from the petition are that on 08.11.2016, the respondents had issued an advertisement to fill 08 vacant posts of Sub Inspector (Ministerial) for the year 2016-17 through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The petitioners being eligible, applied and participated in the written examination held on 18.01.2017, result whereof was declared on 16.02.2017. The terms of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Combatised, Ministerial and Stenographers (Non-Gazetted) Group `B' and `C' Posts Recruitment Rules, 2011 mandates that 75% posts are to be first filled by promotion, failing which by deputation; and remaining 25% through LDCE from amongst the Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) of SSB.

3. According to petitioners, for the year 2016-17, the vacancy position to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) was 244 posts, out of which 183 posts were to be filled by promotion and remaining 61 posts were to be filled by LDCE; whereas vide advertisement dated 08.11.2016, only 08 vacant posts were issued. So, some of the petitioners made a representation to the concerned respondent to re-calculate the vacancy position to be filled through LDCE for the year 2016-17. Accordingly, the respondent issued Signal dated 02.03.2017 informing that based upon the recalculation of vacancy position, the competent authority had approved select list of 61 candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) by LDCE, wherein names of petitioners were reflected. Pursuant to Signal dated 02.03.2017, vide FAX/VAN Message bearing No. 299/RC/SSB/SI (Min) LDCE/2016-17/1237-39 of even date, the competent authority approved appointment of 61 candidates, including the petitioners herein, to the rank of Sub-Inspectors (Ministerial). The petitioners joined in the rank of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) pursuant to order dated 02.03.2017 and successfully completed their probation period in March, 2019; and the respondents vide order dated 15.07.2020 confirmed and regularized the petitioners to the said post effective therefrom. However, vide order dated 17.07.2020 issued by the respondents, it was informed that the merit list dated 16.02.2017, promoting 08 candidates to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) is valid; whereas the merit list of 61 candidates vide order dated 02.03.2017, shall be treated as invalid and cancelled. Consequentially, the respondents cancelled the appointment of petitioners to the post of Sub-Inspector vide another order dated 17.07.2020. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the settled position of law is that once benefit of promotion has been given, it cannot be taken away without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected person. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing and respondents in mala fide manner have left the petitioners to suffer for no faul