Retrospective promotion and seniority cannot be granted unless expressly provided for by the relevant service rules. Delay in LDCE can impact promotion eligibility.

A.K. GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Dr. JL Sarkar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘CAT’), Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.382/2013 whereby the original application was dismissed.

3. At the outset, essential facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition may be noticed.

4. The writ petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the year 1995 and he had joined as such on 12.6.1995. The All India Radio Group “C” Recruitment Rules, 1994, for short, the Recruitment Rules, provide promotion to the post of next higher post i.e. Upper Division Clerk (UDC) by two modes: 80% by promotion on the basis of seniority and 20% by promotion on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The eligibility criterion for the purpose of appearing in LDCE for the post of UDC is 5 years of regular service in the cadre of LDC. The petitioner had completed 5 years of regular service in the cadre of LDC on 12.6.2000. He had appeared in the LDCE for the vacancy that had arisen in the year 2001-02. The examination was held on 26.3.2006. He had also appeared for LDCE for the period of 2002-03 and that examination was held on 27.3.2006. The vacancies were filled up by persons other than the petitioner. Similar vacancy had arisen in the year 2005-06. The grievance of the petitioner originated there from as though required, examination was not held in that year or in subsequent years until 2011 when finally the examination was held for the vacancies that had arisen in the years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The petitioner took part in the examination and on being selected, he was promoted to the post of UDC and he had joined the said post on 23.9.2011. The Recruitment Rules also provide that 20% of the vacancies in the cadre of Head Clerk is to be filled up by LDCE from the cadre of the UDC through eligible persons having 3 years of regular service in the cadre of UDC as on 31st March of the year for which the examination was held. The petitioner on coming to know that LDCE would be held for filling up the post of Head Assistant, had submitted representations before the authorities for the vacancy of the year 2008-09 and had requested for relaxation of eligibility period of 3 years in the cadre of UDC on the ground that if the LDCE for the year 2005-06 had been held in the year 2005-06 itself, the petitioner would have completed the minimum requisite period of 3 years in the cadre of UDC.

5. By a letter dated 19.11.2012, the petitioner was informed that his prayer could not be acceded to and this prompted the petitioner to approach the CAT challenging the aforesaid order dated 19.11.2012 and, amongst others, the order dated 23.9.2011 to the extent of promoting him with prospective effect only. At the same time, a direction was sought to give promotion to the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date when the vacancy had arisen in the year 2005-06 to be filled up by means of LDCE. In the said original application, the petitioner had also claimed arrears of pay consequent upon retrospective promotion being granted as well as seniority w.e.f. the date of vacancy that had arisen in the year 2005-06.

6. It is relevant to note at this juncture that though the petitioner had not completed the period of 3 years from the date of promotion order dated 23.9.2011 when the LDCE for the post of Head Assistant was held, on the strength of the interim order passed by the CAT, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the said examination and it is stated at the Bar that he had emerged as the successful candidate having topped the list.

7. The CAT, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, had opined tha