Promotion eligibility is determined by the service record as of the vacancy determination date. A disciplinary penalty imposed after this date carries only prospective effect and cannot be applied retrospectively to deny an employee's promotion for a previously arisen vacancy.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner-State Government has challenged order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No.2073/2025, whereby while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-employee, directions have been given to promote the respondent on the post of District Education Officer or Equivalent Post against the vacancies of the year 2023-2024 on being found otherwise eligible, along with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on account of commission of serious misconduct, one charge- sheet under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958') dated 22.06.2020 was issued against the respondent-employee and after conducting departmental enquiry in accordance with rules, vide order dated 25.07.2024 penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon respondent-employee.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter, the departmental promotion committee (DPC) convened its meeting on 11.02.2025 for considering candidature of all the eligible candidates, including the petitioner, for promotion on the post of District Education Officer and Equivalent Post. As the penalty was there in the record of petitioner on the date of convening DPC, therefore, instead of granting promotion to the respondent, his result was kept in sealed cover.

4. Subsequent to convening the DPC, promotion order dated 13.02.2025 was issued whereby the other candidates having unblemished record were promoted on the post of District Education Officer and Equivalent Post, although, they were Junior to respondent-employee, who was not promoted on account of above penalty in his service record on the date of convening of DPC.

5. Thereafter, a letter dated 14.07.2025 was issued by the Joint Director (Personnel), Department of Secondary Education directing the Competent Authority to open the sealed cover and since, nothing was done thereafter, to grant promotion to the respondent-employee, feeling aggrieved he approached the Tribunal by way of filing appeal with request of granting him promotion against the vacancies of the year 2023-2024. The appeal filed by the respondent-employee has been allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 04.11.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that order dated 04.11.2025 has been passed by the Tribunal in utter ignorance of correct facts, material on record as well as law prevailing at the relevant time.

7. Learned counsel further submits that learned Tribunal has committed serious error of law in not appreciating the fact that on the date of convening of DPC, admittedly there was a penalty order in record of the respondent-employee relating to withholding of one grade increment without cumulative effect and on account of such penalty, the promotion of the respondent- employee, as per prevailing guidelines, was required to be deferred for a period of one year.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Tribunal has also not rightly appreciated the stand taken by the State Government that for the purpose of consideration of record while considering the candidature of the concerned candidate for promotion, date of incident is relevant and since, in the instant case, date of incident as well as date of issuance of charge-sheet was well within the period of 7 years from the date of consideration by the DPC for considering promotion against vacancy year 2023-2024, hen