Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3717
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J), Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Vivek Kumar Khichar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 1273/2025|OA No. 2142/2025|OA No.1522/2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Promotion and Recruitment Rules
Act Referred
Office Superintendent Recruitment Rules, 2024
Senior Tax Assistant Recruitment Rules, 2003
Headnote
(B) Service Law - Promotions - Unfilled vacancies - Carried forward backlog vacancies treated as part of subsequent vacancy year lose independent character; filled per rules in force on date of consideration, not origin - No indefensible diversion to direct recruitment where quota applied uniformly. (Paras 79-81)
Facts of the case:
Tax Assistants challenged denial of promotion to Office Superintendent claiming pre-notification backlog vacancies (173 in 2024) be filled 100% by promotion under old rules (100% promotion), alleging misapplication of new rules' 70:30 ratio and diversion of promotion quota. Respondents defended merger due to 65% vacancies in feeder cadre, application of rules at DPC date post-merger, promotion of all 732 eligible out of 2818 quota.
Findings of Court:
Vacancies for 2025 assessed per new rules; 30% promotion quota filled to extent of eligibles; no arbitrariness in uniform application or cadre restructuring for administrative efficiency.
Issues: Whether pre-20.09.2024 unfilled vacancies filled under old 100% promotion rules or new 70:30 ratio; validity of carrying forward backlog as part of 2025 vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi: Promotions governed by rules at consideration time, not vacancy occurrence, especially post-repeal/merger; carried forward vacancies follow new ratio without exception; no discrimination in uniform rule application or policy introducing direct recruitment for shortages.
Result: Original Applications dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. MK Bhardwaj, Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Mr. Manish
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Kumar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants' service history and cadre vacancies (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 58 , 62 , 64) |
| 2. vacancies filled per rules at occurrence (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. new rules apply to backlog vacancies (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41) |
| 4. carried-forward vacancies maintain quota (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 5. cbdt rejects promotion-only backlog filling (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 6. rules at consideration time govern promotions (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86) |
| 7. applications dismissed, no merits found (Para 87) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
The issue in all these Original Applications is the same and hence with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the captioned OAs have been heard together and are being disposed of this common order. However, for writing the present order, the facts are being taken from OA No. 1273/2025 (Vivek Kumar Khichar) treating the same as the lead case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were initially appointed as MTS on different dates and were subsequently promoted to the post of Tax Assistant on 6 June 2022. Presently, all the applicants fall within the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. As per the existing Recruitment Rules, the applicants became eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Tax Assistant/Office Superintendent upon completion of three years of regular service in the feeder cadre or by virtue of the relaxation clause providing eligibility upon completion of more than half of the qualifying service or two years, whichever is less, subject to passing the departmental examination. It is submitted that the posts of Senior Tax Assistant and Office Superintendent were later merged and re-designated as Office Superintendent.
3. It is further submitted that the merger of the posts was made effective from the date of notification of the new Recruitment Rules dated 20.09.2024. Prior to the said amendment, the posts of Senior Tax Assistant and Office Superintendent were to be filled 100% by way of promotion. However, by virtue of the new Recruitment Rules, a direct recruitment quota was introduced for the first time in the cadre of Office Superintendent, though no additional posts were created. Therefore, all vacancies that arose prior to the notification of the new Recruitment Rules were required to be filled in accordance with the old Recruitment Rules, i.e., entirely through promotion.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per the DoPT Office Memoranda dated 10.04.1989 and 22.07.2024, it has been clearly laid down that vacancies are to be filled as per the rules in force on the date of occurrence of such vacancies. Thus, all vacancies existing prior to 20.09.2024 were required to be filled by promotion. Despite this, while issuing the promotion order dated 31.12.2024, the respondents failed to fill all the available vacancies and left a substantial number of posts unfilled on the pretext of lack of clarification from higher authorities.
5. It is submitted that the respondents had even initiated the process for promotion by calling for vigilance clearance of all eligible Tax Assistants, including juniors to the applicants. This created a legitimate expectation that the applicants would also be considered for promotion, particularly when the benefit of relaxation in qualifying service was applicable. However, the applicants were arbitrarily denied promotion while their juniors were considered.
6. It is further submitted that the denial of promotion is based on a misinterpretation of the DoPT instructions through an impugned clarification dated 13.12.2024, wherein it has been wrongly directed that vacancies be filled as per the amende
