Eligibility for promotion under conflicting recruitment rules must prioritize service years and proper seniority lists as determined by precedent.

ORDER

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

Both the applicants were directly recruited as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the year 1996. Later they were promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and thereafter, as Assistant Superintendent based on seniority with effect from 8.6.2015 and 22.5.2015 respectively. Annexure A3 is the Recruitment Rules known as “Ministry of External Affairs, Central Passport Organization (Group-B posts Gazetted & Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2010”. At that time, the post of Assistant Superintendent was known as “Assistant”. Vacancies were filled up in the proportion of 50% by promotion, 25% by direct recruitment and 25% by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). For 50% promotion, the qualification prescribed was 10 years of regular service in the grade of UD clerk. However, at Note-1 in column 12, it was provided that the eligibility service shall continue to be 8 years in respect of persons holding post of UD Clerk on regular basis on the date of notification of the revised Recruitment Rules. The Recruitment Rules were notified on 13.12.2010. Regarding the 25% of LDCE promotion, the eligibility condition was UD Clerk with 8 years regular service in the grade and degree from a recognized university.

2. Applicants being qualified claim to be entitled for promotion quota as well as LDCE quota. It was alleged that though large number of vacancies in the cadre of Assistants/Assistant Superintendents were available and applicants were senior enough, they were not considered for promotion for want of eligibility service condition. Thereafter, Annexure A4 notification dated 4.3.2014 was issued in supersession of Annexure A3. In Annexure A4 also, the method of recruitment was 50% by promotion, 25% by promotion through LDCE and 25% by direct recruitment. Regarding promotion through LDCE, the qualification prescribed was UD clerks with 5 years regular service in the grade and Bachelor’s degree from a recognized University or Association of Indian Universities, or recognized degrees of foreign universities.

3. Pursuant to Annexure A4, notification inviting applications for promotion against 25% of LDCE quota as issued as Annexure A5 dated 26.12.2014. Applicants claiming themselves to be qualified responded. Even before the written examination was conducted, the applicants were promoted against the 50% promotion quota by orders issued under Annexure A6 dated 15.6.2015 by the 2^nd respondent. They took over the higher responsibilities on 8.6.2015 and 22.5.2015 respectively. Though written examination towards the LDCE was conducted on 30.8.2015, the applicants were not allowed to participate in the examination on the premise that they have already been promoted against 50% promotion quota. According to the applicants, in terms of Annexure A5, only those who have completed 5 years of service as on 1.1.2015 were eligible. It was consistent with Annexure A7 office memorandum issued by DoP&T dated 17.9.1988. Thereafter, the LDCE was conducted and candidates were promoted on different dates commencing from 12.10.2015. Several appointments were also made against direct recruitment quota.

4. Thereafter, Annexure A8 dated 22/25 April, 2016 seniority list of Assistant Superintendents/Superintendents/Senior Superintendents as on 1.4.2016 was published. The applicants were arrayed as serial Nos. 92 and 93 respectively, which according to the applicants, was consistent with their dates of promotion and seniority in the feeder cadre. The officers were requested to bring to the notice of the respondents, any factual error within the prescribed time limit. Thereafter, another seniority list showing the se