The court upheld the validity of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination as both qualifying and competitive, affirming the need for merit in promotions.

JUDGMENT

K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A. No.180/00167/2019 dated 08.04.2022, the applicants preferred this OP(CAT). The applicants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with the following claim.

i. “Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexures A1 to A3 and quash the same to the extent they proceed as if the process of selection is through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination;

ii. Declare that A1 is only an examination equivalent to the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination conducted by the Department of Posts & Telecommunications and declare further that passing of which, is only an eligibility condition to be considered for promotion as Assistant Accounts OfÏcers, and that all those who qualify in the said examination are subject to fulfillment of other conditions in column 11 of the schedule to Annexure A7, eligible to be considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the manner specified in A6 OM of the Department of Personnel &

Training;

iii.Direct the respondents to consider the applicants for promotion to the post of AAO in the order of their seniority in terms of Annexure A6, and direct further to grant them all the consequential benefits of promotion from the date from which those who are included in A3 have now been promoted, including arrears of pay and allowances, arising there from;

iv. Award costs of and incidental thereto;

v.Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just and fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal.”

2. The Central Administrative Tribunal as per the impugned order dismissed the original application.

3. Succinctly the facts in dispute for adjudication of the controversy are enumerated hereunder:

4. Petitioners/applicants, working as Senior Accountants in Department of Posts and Telecommunications were denied a fair and lawful consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts OfÏcer in level-8 of the pay matrix against the Recruitment Rules. The respondents had published Annexure-A1 notification dated 19.04.2018 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Accounts OfÏcer through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as ‘LDCE’). The respondents had also published Annexure-A2 corrigendum giving some more details regarding the last date of receipt, pattern of questions, etc.

5. After the LDCE, the respondents published result as Annexure-A3 OM dated 01.10.2018, showing a merit list of 949 candidates.

6. The petitioners/applicants challenged the conduct of LDCE after participating in the selection process. The main challenge was that the LDCE conducted by the respondents is against the Recruitment Rules. Further, the passing of LDCE can only be considered as an eligibility test. It was further contended that no Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held for granting promotion.

7. The contention of the ofÏcial respondents was that as per the VI^th Central Pay Commission recommendations, the cadre of Junior Accounts OfÏcer and Assistant Accounts OfÏcer were merged into one cadre by name Assistant Accounts OfÏcer with effect from 01.01.2006. Further, Group-B cadre of Department of Posts and Department of Telecommunications was amalgamated as unified cadre as AAO/AO/Sr.AO with effect from 01.09.2009. Owing to this, the four sets of Recruitment Rules in operation in the Department of Posts and Department of Telecommunications.

8. The Tribunal, noticing the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties, disposed of the original application.

9. The learned