Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5402

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative Member
Manmil Das – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 040/00273/2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H.K. Das
For the Respondents: R. Hazarika

An eligible employee for promotion as of a crucial date must be considered against existing vacancies, and authorities cannot deny such promotion based on subsequent age attainment or arbitrary selection processes that ignore seniority and eligibility criteria.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Promotion from Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) to Group-D cadre - Criteria for promotion - Fitness cum seniority - Age eligibility - Crucial date of eligibility - The court held that the applicant was entitled to be considered for promotion against vacancies as on the crucial date of 01.07.2006, as he had not crossed the age limit of 50 years at that time, notwithstanding the delay in holding DPC proceedings. (Paras 6, 7 and observations)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an employee of the postal department, had been seeking promotion to Group-D since 2006. Previous litigation resulted in court directions to convene review DPCs. The applicant contended that the department repeatedly bypassed him by improperly selecting other candidates with disputed dates of birth and failing to fill all available vacancies, despite his fulfilling the age criteria of below 50 years as of the crucial date of 01.07.2006.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that respondents failed to consider the applicant's promotion at the appropriate time despite clear vacancies. The selection of other candidates was marred by discrepancies in date of birth records and non-appointment to the notified posts. Consequently, the court ordered a review DPC to consider the applicant's eligibility based on the 2006 criteria.

Issues: Whether the applicant is eligible for promotion to the Group-D cadre against vacancies as of 01.07.2006 and whether the respondents acted arbitrarily in the selection process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an employee satisfies the statutory age criteria for promotion on the crucial date, the authorities are duty-bound to consider their candidature regardless of subsequent procedural delays; failure to address available vacancies arbitrarily constitutes an error to be rectified by a review DPC.

Result: Original Application allowed with directions to hold a review DPC.

Present:

For applicant(s): Shri H.K. Das

For respondents: Shri R. Hazarika, Addl. CGSC for

Official respondent Nos. 1 to 4

Date of Hearing: 21.04.2026 Date of Order: 24.04.2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following reliefs:

“8.1] To quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure-A/1) issued by the 4th respondent and grant all consequential benefits.

8.2] To direct the respondents to promote the applicant in the cadre of Group-D w.e.f. 01.07.06 with all consequential benefits.

8.3] Cost of the application

8.4] Pass any order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

The applicant was initially appointed as Extra Departmental (E.D.) Letter Box Peon on 23.01.1978. The respondents considering the seniority of applicant time to time appointed him as Group D on ah-hoc basis. The service rule mandated for year wise DPC for promotion of E.D. Agents to Group D posts following the criteria "seniority subject to satisfactory service". The said service rules also provide that E.D. staff who is above the age of 50 years (55 years in case of SC/ST) shall not be eligible for appointment as Group- D. While the applicant was approaching the age of 50 years, he approached the Hon'ble Tribunal by filling O.A. No. 19/2008 praying for consideration of his case for promotion to Group- D. This Tribunal vide order dated 21.05.2009 dismissed the said O.A. on the ground that the applicant was over aged and crossed 50 years on 01.04.07, therefore there is no scope of his getting promotion under the Service Rules pertaining to promotion of E.D. Staff to Group-D cadre. The applicant assailed the decision of the Tribunal by filling W.P.(C) No. 2131/2009. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide judgment and order dated 18.06.2013 quashed and set aside the order of this Tribunal dated 21.05.2009 and directed the respondents to convene review DPC as on 01.07.2006 to consider the cases of 6 (six) incumbents including the applicant for promotion to Group-D cadre. The respondents issued order dated 14.10.2014 finalising recommendation of 3 (three) GDS employees out of which one, namely Jaminj Kumar Das was not even mentioned by the Hon'ble High Court in the judgement and order dated 18.06.2013. As per the applicant, the respondents illegally and arbitrarily, recorded the date of birth of Jamini Kumar Das as 08.05.1958 instead of 01.05.1949 (recorded in the seniority list of ED agents) in the order dated 14.10.2014 and illegally brought him within the zone of consideration for promotion to Group- D. The other two incumbents were also not promoted to Group-D as one was subsequently promoted to Group-D and the other one forgone his promotion. The applicant filed O.A. 126/2015 before this Tribunal challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 14.10.2014. This Tribunal vide order dated 13.09.2017 was to set aside and quash the order dated 14.10.2014 and holding the inclusion of Jamini Kumar Das to be illegal, directing the respondents to hold review DPC as on 01.07.2006. Once again, with the sole objective of denying promotion to the applicant, the respondents issued impugned communication dated 21.01.2020 informing the applicant of the decision to promote one Abani Kumar Sarma to the post of Group-D w.e.f 01.07.2006. As in the matter of Jamini Kumar Das, the respondents in this case also, erroneously and illegally recorded the date of birth of Abani Kumar Sarma to be 01.03.1959 instead of 01.07.1956 (recorded in the seniority list of ED agents). It is also worth mentioning that the first 2 (two) GDS employees out of the 3 (three) selected for promotion as per the order dated 14.10.2014 were also not promoted against the vacancies as on 01.07.2006. Suppressing these fact the respondents have proceeded all this while as if only 1 (one) vacant post is left and recommended the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5402

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative MemberManmil Das – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application No. 040/00273/2021

An eligible employee for promotion as of a crucial date must be considered against existing vacancies, and authorities cannot deny such promotion based on subsequent age attainment or arbitrary selection processes that ignore seniority and eligibility criteria.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative Member
Manmil Das – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 040/00273/2021