The entitlement to promotion cannot be claimed without fulfilling the specified eligibility criteria, even in cases of compassionate appointments.

ORDER

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Appli ion has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:

“(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal

(b) Quash and set aside the impugned Note in F.No.NIANP2-6(13) Estt.2008-09/Vol.III/135 dated 01/2.9.2021 (Annexure A12) passed by third respondent

(c) Issue a consequent direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant and promote her to the post of Technician I as she fulfills all the eligibility conditions and there is a vacant post of Technician I

(d) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of this appli ion in the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice.”

2. The aforementioned reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraph 5.1 to 5.9 of the Original Appli ion. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the applicant in the O.A, are that after much contest, the applicant was appointed as Skilled Supporting Staff in the third respondent's office on compassionate grounds. However, her services were not utilized in the said post but she was directed to discharge duties relating to clerical cadre. When the post of Technician I became vacant in third respondent office, the applicant submitted representation praying that her case be considered for promotion. However, an interim reply was sent stating that headquarters had issued directions not to fill any posts. Since the applicant was handling clerical duties for over seven years, she submitted another representation to promote her at least as Lower Division Clerk. That was also rejected by the respondents on the grounds that she has no prescribed qualifi ions. On 20.4.2020, headquarters issued directions permitting the offices under its control to fill up the live cadre posts. Thereafter, the applicant submitted further representations, but the third respondent issued the impugned reply dated 01/2.9.2021 vide Appendix A12 declining her request and further informed that no further communi ions will be entertained in regard to her promotion. The applicant has thereafter obtained information under RTI and a perusal of the same shows that she is fully eligible for promotion as Technician I. There is a vacancy available and the respondents have failed to consider her case. Therefore, the applicant has been constrained to prefer this O.A. Hence, based on the grounds agitated, the applicant requests to allow her Original Appli ion and to grant her all the reliefs claimed.

3. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statements and further the applicant has filed rejoinder.

4. The case came up for final hearing on 11.12.2024. Shri.B.S.Venkatesh Kumar for the applicant, Shri.B.A.Chandrashekar for respondent nos.2 and 3 and Shri.Vishnu Bhat for respondent nos.1 were present and heard.

5. We have carefully gone through the entire record and considered the rival contentions.

6. The basic facts of the case are not disputed. That the applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds as Skilled Support Staff, and she had been discharging her duties related to clerical cadre as there was no work corresponding to her qualifi ions. In fact, what emerges is that her compassionate appointment was also delayed for some reasons. It is also not disputed that the applicant has a secondary school certifi e of April 1987 and a National Trade Certifi e in Electronics Mechanic dated 31.07.2017 (1992-1994). It is also not disputed that there i