2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6204

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J), Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Abhishek Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Employees Provident Fund Organization – Respondent
O.A. No. 2580/2024

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Promotion - Limited Departmental Competitive Examination - Eligibility criteria - Seniority versus eligibility - DoPT OMs dated 18.03.1988, 23.10.1989, 25.03.1996 and 19.07.1989 - Recruitment Rules (RRs) - The settled principle is that where juniors who have completed their qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying/eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying/eligibility service or two years, whichever is less, and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade alongwith their juniors who have already completed such qualifying/eligibility service. DoPT OMs are not just advisory but mandatory, and have to be taken as legislation by the Executive under Article 73 of the Constitution. They cannot be treated as waste paper. (Paras 8, 9)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 14 - The respondents' failure to incorporate the mandatory clause from DoPT OM dated 25.03.1996 in the Recruitment Rules for Social Security Assistants, while other services have done so, amounts to invidious discrimination and violation of Article 14. (Para 8)

(C) Constitution of India - Article 16(1) - No junior shall be confirmed or promoted without considering the case of his senior. Any deviation from this principle will have a demoralizing effect and is contrary to the Constitution. (Para 4(iv))

Facts of the case:
The applicants, working as Social Security Assistants (SSA), challenged the respondents' action in not permitting them to participate in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to Section Supervisor, notified via Circular dated 07.06.2024. The cut-off date for eligibility was fixed as 01.01.2024, requiring completion of 9 years of regular service. The applicants joined service between 2014 to 2016. Due to staggered joining, some candidates of the same batch who joined earlier became eligible, while those who joined later became ineligible. The applicants contended the delay in joining was attributable to the respondents. They relied on DoPT OMs and judgments including Sadhana Khanna to argue that seniors should be considered even if short of eligibility. An interim order allowed all applicants to sit for the exam, with results kept in a sealed cover. Out of 48, 31 candidates qualified and pressed the OA.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the DoPT OM dated 25.03.1996 is mandatory and not merely advisory. The respondents were found to be careless, casual, and cavalier in their approach by not incorporating the required note in the Recruitment Rules. The balance of convenience clearly lies with the applicants. The court directed the respondents to consider incorporating the mandatory clause from DoPT OM dated 25.03.1996 into the Recruitment Rules and then consider promoting the applicants as per their due dates from when their juniors were promoted. This exercise must be completed within six months.

Issues: The main issues were whether the DoPT OMs are mandatory or advisory, and whether the applicants, who were seniors but short of the eligibility period, could be considered for promotion along with their juniors.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the DoPT OMs, being issued by the nodal ministry, are mandatory and must be read along with the Recruitment Rules. The OMs are directions applicable across all services of the Government of India and must be treated as executive legislation under Article 73 of the Constitution. The respondents' failure to apply them, while other services have done so, constitutes discrimination under Article 14.

Result: The OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider incorporating the mandatory clause from DoPT OM dated 25.03.1996 in the Recruitment Rules for Social Security Assistants and Section Supervisors in EPFO and then to consider promoting the applicants as per their due dates. This exercise should be completed within six months. No order as to costs. (Para 9) (Main Legal Point) Seniors must be considered for promotion along with juniors even if they are short of the eligibility period, provided the shortfall is not more than half or two years, as per mandatory DoPT instructions. Keywords: promotion eligibility, seniority, qualifying service, cut-off date, recruitment rules, limited departmental competitive examination, DoPT OMs, executive instructions, relaxation of criteria, discrimination. Category: Service Law Sub Category: Promotion Keywords: promotion eligibility, seniority, qualifying service, cut-off date, recruitment rules, limited departmental competitive examination, DoPT OMs, executive instructions, relaxation of criteria, discrimination