The right to be considered for promotion is fundamental, but does not guarantee promotion; appointing authorities may differ from DPC recommendations based on qualifications.

ORDER

By Mallika Arya, AM.-

The applicant has filed this Original Application seeking direction to the respondents to promote him on the post of UDC in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, 1998. He is also challenging the absorption of respondent No.4 on the post of UDC-cum-Cashier.

2. During the pendency of the Original Application, the relief sought for by the applicant regarding his promotion has been granted to him by the respondents as he has been promoted to the post of UDC vide order dated 22.06.2016. However, the applicant claims seniority from 2012 with consequential benefits. In this regard, the applicant has filed an MA No.509/2023 seeking amendment in the Original Application, which was allowed on 12.04.2024 and the necessary amendment has been carried out by learned counsel for the applicant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed with this Tribunal and thereafter he was sent on deputation to Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), where he was absorbed as Photocopier on 25.04.2001. Upon his absorption, the DPC has recommended the applicant for promotion to the post of LDC and, as such, he was promoted as LDC vide order dated 25.04.2001 (Annexure A-2). For promotion from LDC to UDC, the Recruitment Rules known as Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (Group C and D) (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1998 provides that promotion to UDC is to be done 100% by way of promotion and failing which the post can be filled up by deputation/absorption. The applicant was working in the feeder cadre and had completed twelve years of regular on the post of LDC and, as such, he was entitled to be promoted as UDC.

3.1 The respondent No.4, who was appointed with the Higher Education Department of State of Madhya Pradesh, has been absorbed as UDC-cum- Cashier. The applicant submits that absorption of respondent No.4 was illegal as the DPC has unanimously resolved that since there was no objection certificate from the State Government and the persons in the feeder cadre are available, the respondent No.4 cannot be absorbed on the post of UDC. The applicant has filed the minutes of the DPC held on 24.02.2012 (Annexure A-4), which was received by him under RTI.

3.2 The applicant and one Shri Mithilesh Trivedi were eligible for promotion to UDC and after the death of Shri Mithilesh Trivedi in mid 2012, the applicant was the sole incumbent in the feeder cadre, eligible for promotion. However, ignoring the recommendation of the DPC, the respondent No.2 has passed the order dated 01.03.2012 (Annexure A-5), thereby absorbing the respondent No.4 on the post of UDC-cum-Cashier.

3.3 During the pendency of the OA, the respondents have granted the benefit of promotion to the applicant from 2016 onwards vide order dated 22.06.2016 (Annexure A-7), whereas the applicant is entitled for the said benefit from the year 2012.

4. In their reply, the respondents have conceded the fact that the DPC had recommended the applicant and one Shri Mithilesh Trivedi for promotion to the post of UDC. They, however, state that the administration had to fill up the post of UDC-cum-Cashier for smooth functioning of Accounts Section of DRT, which demands not only the independent proficiency of computer operation but also drafting and accounting ability with relevant educational qualifications. The applicant, though has the primary knowledge of computer, his qualification is only SSC. Therefore, he is not eligible to be posted as UDC-cum-Cashier, where he has to handle accounting work of the DRT.

5. The respondent No.4 was considered to be most eligible and fit candidate for absorption in the post of UDC-cum-Cashier for the reasons that he was on deputation in DRT as UDC-cum-Cashier from 02.06.2004 to 01.06.2005 and thereafter since 11.04.2007 till date of absorption. He was handling the post very efficiently and to the satisfaction of the administration. The respondent No.4 is a commerce graduate with 21 years of service out of which major portion he wa