Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ram Badan Yadav And Other vs Gnctd on 7 November, 2025
1
OA No. 454/2022
Item No.87/C-3
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 454/2022
Reserved on : 24.09.2025
Pronounced on : 07.11.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
1. Mr. Ram Badan Yadav, Aged about 48 years
S/o Mr. Rama Shankar Yadav
R/o Quarter No.38, ITI Staff Quarters
Sun Light Colony, Ring Road Ashram
Near Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-110014.
2. Mr. Pushp Kumar, Aged about 52 years
S/o Mr. Chander Singh
R/o Village - Janti Kalan, Post Office - Janti Kalan
District-Sonipat, Haryana.
3. Mr. Ganesh Kumar Yadav
Aged about 51 years
S/o Mr. Jhamman Singh Yadav
R/o H.No.22, Gyan Khand-3
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P.
4. Mr. Anand Singh, Aged about 52 years
S/o Mr. Bagh Singh
R/o 2/16, G.B. Pant Institute of Technology Campus
Okhla Phase-3, New Delhi-110020.
.. Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Puneet Rathi)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. Department of Training and Technical Education
Through it's Secretary
Muni Maya Ram Marg
Pitampura, Delhi-110088.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sameer Sharma)
2
OA No. 454/2022
Item No.87/C-3
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A) By virtue of the present O.A., the applicants are seeking a direction to the respondents to consider them for promotion to the post of Craft Instructor to which they have been eligible, but have been passed over while granting to others. The representation filed in this regard was rejected by the respondents vide letters dated 29.09.2021 and 04.01.2022. The applicants have sought for the following relief(s):
"(i) to quash the orders dated 29.09.2021 & 04.01.2022 and direct the Respondent Department to consider the Applicants for promotion as per their entitlement, in terms of the un-
amended Recruitment Rules to the post of Craft Instructor.
(ii) to direct the Respondent Department to promote the Applicants to the post of Craft Instructors (CI) on completion of 10 years service with consequential benefits on the basis of Recruitment Rules applicable at the relevant time.
(iii) to not penalize the Applicant on grounds of limitation as this is a clear case of fraud which has been committed on the part of the Respondent Department as they granted promotion to similarly situated candidates despite the amendment of the Recruitment Rules in 2007 but have deprived the Applicants of a right to be considered for promotion till date.
(iv) award cost of the proceedings.
(v) pass any other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow cost in favour of the Applicants."
2. The brief facts as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicants are:
2.1 The applicant Nos. 1 to 3 were appointed to the post of Peon (a Group 'D' post) in the year 1996 whereas the applicant No.4 was 3 OA No. 454/2022 Item No.87/C-3 appointed in 1991; and they became eligible for the next promotion available to the post of Work Shop Attendant (WSA) after completing 10 years regular service. However, the respondents did not hold any DPC despite availability of vacancies. 2.2 The applicant No.4 was promoted to the post of WSA on 16.12.2005 after delay of more than 4 years, despite vacancies were available earlier.
2.3 The respondents amended the Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the Training Wing on 24.04.2007 (Annexure A-8), according to which, now 16 years of regular service was required for a WSA to be promoted as Craft Instructor (CI), which was 10 years as per previous RRs of 1997. It has also been mentioned that the RRs were only changed for Training Wing and for Technical Wing, the same were remain un-amended.
2.4 It is contended that the DPC was deliberately withheld and convened only after the change in RRs for promotion to the post of CI and the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 were promoted as WSA on 22.10.2007, prejudicing them and delaying further promotion as CI from 10 to 16 years, whereas their counterparts in Technical Wing would still continue to be promoted only after 10 years. 2.5 Once again, the RRs of the Training Wing were amended vide Notification dated 15.11.2016, as per which the experience of service required from WSA to CI was further pushed to 18 years. 4 OA No. 454/2022
Item No.87/C-3
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the case of similarly situated employees, viz. Ram Kishan Tusham and Zile Singh, who preferred O.A. No.798/2010, this Tribunal vide Order dated 26.08.2010 (Annexure A-12) directed the Department to consider them for promotion as per the unamended Recruitment Rules against the vacancies that accrued prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules in 2007. The respondents vide order dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure A-13) promoted the applicants in O.A. No. 798/2010 along with 5 other employees who were not the applicants in the said O.A., as CI on the basis of unamended RRs. 3.1 It is further submitted that 11 Group 'D' officials were promoted as WSA on 16.12.2005 and, subsequently, 10 similarly situated WSAs in the Training Wing were also promoted to the post of CI as per pre-ameneded rules on 02.09.2016 (Annexure A-15), on the recommendation of DPC held on 10.08.2016. Thereafter, on 02.11.2020, 5 officials were promoted to the post of Workshop Instructors (WI), who were promoted as WSA on 23.08.2009 whereas one of them viz. Ashok Kumar joined the service on 12.07.1996, after the applicants joined the service (a copy of his promotion order is placed at Annexure A-17). However, till date the applicants have been denied the promotion for no fault of them, despite working for 25 years and having requisite eligibility for the post of CI, whereas other similarly situated employees as well as their juniors have been granted promotion as CI/WI, which is clear 5 OA No. 454/2022 Item No.87/C-3 discrimination and in violation of Articles 14 & 21 as the applicants are discriminated against the employees who were promoted on the basis of unamended RRs.
3.2 In support of the case, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following case laws:
(i) State of U.P. vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava, MANU/SC/0948/2014, wherein it has been held that a set of employee is given relief by the court, the other identical situated employees should be treated similarly and benefit should be extended to them also.
(ii) State of U.P. vs Mahesh Narain and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 169 (paras 13-17), wherein it has been held that the amendment of the Recruitment Rules will be applicable only in subsequent recruitment and not on the posts which were held by the applicants prior to the amendment.
(iii) Similar view was taken in Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee and Others vs Union of India and Others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 363 (paras 3 & 5).
(iv) S.K. Murthi vs Union of India in WP(C) No. 14263/2004 (paras 7 - 10), which was affirmed by Apex Court in Union of India vs S.K. Murti, 2011 SCC Online SC 1655 (para 5 & 6). 6 OA No. 454/2022 Item No.87/C-3
(v) E.P. Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3, whereby the Apex Court held that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality.
(vi) Sualal Yadav vs the State of Rajasthan and Ors., MANU/SC/0065/1975.
(vii) Inder Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh in SLP (C) No. 6145/2024 (paras 14 & 16).
3.3 He further contended that the delay in convening the DPC is entirely attributable to the respondent department and as per the DoPT guidelines vide Circular dated 10.04.1989, as amended by OM No.22011/5/91/Establishment(D) dated 27.03.1997, the DPC should be convened at regular annual intervals to draw panel which could be utilized on making promotions against vacancies occurring during the course of the relevant year, which was not followed by the respondent department, for which the applicants cannot be penalised.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent No.2 - DTTE has two distinct wings, Training Wing and Technical Wing, with different Recruitment Rules and promotional hierarchies. In the Training Wing, a WSA is promoted to the post of CI, whereas in the Technical Wing, the next promotion is to the post of Workshop Instructor (WI). It is pertinent to mention that a WI is assigned only workshop duties and posted at various Institutes of Technologies (presently under DSEU), whereas a CI is incharge of a section and is responsible for both theory and 7 OA No. 454/2022 Item No.87/C-3 practical classes. The applicants herein belong to the Training Wing, i.e. ITIs.
4.1 A DPC involves several administrative procedures and it is time consuming process, hence, a reasonable and bonafide time is taken by every DPC, which is unavoidable.
4.2 He pointed out that the RRs of the Technical Wing and the Training Wing are distinct. In 2007, the Training Wing (ITIs) notified amended RRs, altering the promotion avenues of WSAs. However, the RRs of the Technical Wing/Polytechnics remained unchanged.
4.3 He further submitted that as per the 1997 RRs, the qualifications prescribed for promotion to Cl from the feeder post of WSA were:
a. 10 years of regular service as WSA b. Matriculation from a recognized Board/University c. National Trade Certificate (NTC) in the relevant trade, or its equivalent, or National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) in the relevant trade or equivalent.
4.4 The RRs of 1997 (Annexure A-6) for the post of CI were subsequently amended twice, i.e. vide Notification dated 24.04.2007 (Annexure A-8) and Notification dated 15.11.2016 (Annexure A-11). Vide amendment dated 24.04.2007, the requisite length of regular service as WSA was increased from 10 years to 16 years and vide 8 OA No. 454/2022 Item No.87/C-3 amendment dated 15.11.2016, it was further enhanced from 16 years to 18 years of regular service as WSA.
4.5 He also submitted that the applicants were not holding the feeder post of WSA on 24.04.2007, i.e., the date of notification of the amended RRs, and thus, had no vested right to be considered under the un-amended Rules. He also pointed out that the applicant No. 4 did not possess the mandatory National Trade Certificate (NTC) at the relevant time. He acquired the qualification only in 2017, as evidenced in the detailed affidavit filed by the Respondents on 17.02.2023 vide Diary No. 1368.
4.6 Vide order dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure A-15), 10 WSAs were promoted as CI as they were already in the feeder post (WSA) on 24.04.2007, i.e., on the date of notification of the amended RRs. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicants' reliance on the Order passed in Ram Kishan Tusham (supra) is misplaced because applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 therein had joined on 08.12.1988 and 01.11.1989, respectively, and as per the 1997 RRs, they had already completed 10 to 13 years of service in the feeder post of WSA before 2007 amendment and, thus, fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion (ref. page 169). However, the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 and applicant No.4 herein were promoted as WSAs on 22.10.2007 and 16.12.2005, respectively. Hence, the applicants 1 to 3 will become eligible for promotion to CI on 9 OA No. 454/2022 Item No.87/C-3 completion of 18 years of regular service as WSA only in 2025 and the applicant No. 4 became eligible in 2023 and has already been promoted to the post of CI vide order dated 05.09.2024. A copy of the ibid order is also placed on record.
4.7 Reliance is placed upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs Raj Kumar & Ors., (2023) 3 SCC 773 (Annexure-1 to counter affidavit), wherein it was held that existing vacancies are to be filled in accordance with the Rules in force at the time of consideration. The highlighted portion of the Judgment reads thus:
"37.3 The consistent findings in these fifteen decisions that Rangaiah's case must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date which they arose, compels us to conclude that the decision in Rangaiah is impliedly overruled. However, as there is no declaration of law to this effect, it continues to be cited as a precedent and this Court has been distinguishing it on some ground or the other, as we have indicated hereinabove. For clarity and certainty, it is, therefore, necessary for us to hold;
(a) The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao that, "the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would 59 be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules", does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under part XIV of the Constitution. It is hereby overruled.
(b) The rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services."
Accordingly, he submitted that the O.A. is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
10OA No. 454/2022 Item No.87/C-3
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the pleadings/judgments as well.
6. The primary issue arises for consideration is whether the applicants are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Craft Instructor (CI) under the unamended RRs of 1997 or not or to be governed by the amended RRs notified in 2007 and 2016..
7. The applicants contended that the delay in convening the DPC was deliberate and attributable to the respondents. According to them, had the DPC been held in time, they would have been promoted as Workshop Attendants (WSAs) prior to the 2007 amendment in RRs, thereby becoming eligible for promotion to CI under the un-amended RRs, which prescribed only 10 years of qualifying service. They further asserted that the subsequent enhancement of qualifying service to 16 years in 2007 amendment and 18 years in 2016 caused grave prejudice to them. On this premise, the applicants claim parity with similarly placed employees, viz. Ram Kishan Tusham and Zile Singh, i.e. applicants in O.A. No. 798/2010, who were granted promotion under the pre- amended RRs. They have also relied on several judicial precedents to argue that administrative delay should not deprive them of their rightful promotional consideration, and also that, arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
11OA No. 454/2022 Item No.87/C-3
8. However, the material on record makes it clear that the applicants belong to the Training Wing, which has a distinct set of Recruitment Rules and promotional avenues from those applicable to the employees of Technical Wing. The amendments to the RRs for the Training Wing in 2007 and 2016 were made through due process, and the validity of those amendments has not been challenged before us. It is undisputed that on the date of the 2007 amendment, the applicants were not yet holding the feeder post of WSA. Consequently, they did not acquire any vested right to be considered for promotion to the post of CI under the un-amended RRs of 1997. It is also on record that applicant No.4 did not possess the mandatory National Trade Certificate (NTC) until 2017 and, therefore, could not have been considered earlier. Notably, he has since been promoted as CI in 2024 in accordance with the amended RRs, demonstrating that the respondents are following the current/amended RRs.
9. The plea of parity with employees promoted under the un- amended rules is also untenable. The principle of parity applies only when the employees are identically situated both in terms of factual circumstances and eligibility. Those promoted as CI under the 1997 RRs were already holding the feeder post of WSA prior to the 2007 RRs amendment, whereas the applicant No. 1 to 3 were promoted to that post only in October 2007, after the amended rules came into 12 OA No. 454/2022 Item No.87/C-3 effect. Therefore, the ratio in Ram Kishan Tusham (supra) cannot be made applicable to the present case.
10. It is well settled that an employee does not possess a vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the rules prevailing at the time of such consideration. The right to be considered for promotion accrues only when an employee holds the feeder post and fulfils the eligibility conditions under the rules in force at that time, not merely because a vacancy may have arisen earlier.
11. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs Raj Kumar & Ors., (2023) 3 SCC 773, has categorically clarified that the principle laid down in Y.V. Rangaiah vs J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 does not lay down a rule of universal application. The Apex Court held that promotions are ordinarily governed by the rules in force at the time of consideration, unless the amended rules themselves provide otherwise. This authoritative pronouncement effectively overrules the broad interpretation of Rangaiah (supra) and reinforces that the State has the power to amend recruitment rules in the interest of administrative efficiency and public policy.
12. Although the DoPT OMs dated 10.04.1989 and 27.03.1997 mandate timely convening of DPCs, mere administrative delay does not confer an enforceable right to retrospective promotion, unless 13 OA No. 454/2022 Item No.87/C-3 mala fide intent or violation of statutory rights is established. The applicants have not adduced any cogent material to establish mala fide intent, discrimination, or violation of statutory procedure on the part of the respondents.
13. In light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the applicants' claim. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. However, it is directed that the respondents shall consider applicant Nos. 1 to 3 for promotion to the post of Craft Instructor (CI) as and when they become eligible, strictly in accordance with the RRs in force at that time.
14. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/