Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Abhimanyu vs Indian Council Medical Research on 28 November, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 849/2025
Reserved on: 28.11.2025
Pronounced on: 04.12.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
1. Abhimanyu, Age 31 years,
S/o Sh. Khushi Ram,
Working as UDC in ICMR Hqrs. New Delhi
R/o 32, Village Kheri Damkan, Tehsil Gohana,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana-131301
2. Kishor Tomer, Aged 31 years,
S/o sh. Satnarian,
Working as UDC in ICMR Hqrs., New Delhi
R/o Gorar, Sonipat, Haryana-131408
3. Suraj Chauhan, aged 31 years,
S/o Sh. Vinod Chauhan,
Working as UDC in ICMR Hqrs., New Delhi
R/o Vill. Kirthal, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh-250611
4. Neeraj Kumar, Aged 29 years,
S/o Sh. Sudharshan Kumar,
Working as UDC in ICMR Hqrs., New Delhi
R/o Vill. & PO Karountha, District Rohtak,
Haryana-124001
5. Mrs. Soniya Solanki, Aged 33 years,
W/o Mr. Ravi Dabas,
Working as UDC in ICMR Hqs., New Delhi
R/o House No.153, Main Stand Mubarakpur,
Near Park Mubararkpur Dabas, Saraswati Vihar,
West Delhi-110081
6. Satender Kumar, aged 29 years,
S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh,
Working as UDC in ICMR Hqs. New Delhi
R/o Teori, Bajanakhurd, District Sonipat,
Haryana-131102
7. Vineet, Aged 28 years,
2
S/o sh. Kuldeep Singh,
Working as UDC in ICMR HQs. New Delhi
R/o Chimni, District Jhajjar, Haryana-124412
8. Sandeep Pawar, Aged 30 years,
S/o Sh. Subhash Chander,
Working as UDC in ICMR Hqs., New Delhi,
R/o Saidpur, District Sonipat, Haryana-131402
- Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
Indian Council of Medical Research,
Through the Director General,
V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029 - Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. Jasbir Bhiduri)
3
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing of impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (SI. No.2 Reply) (Annex.A/1) declaring to the effect that the same is illegal and arbitrary and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and fill up the unfilled 11 posts or more of promotion quota of the year 2024 from the LDCE of 2024 qualified candidates with consequential benefits from the date of promotion of other candidates of same examination including arrears of difference of pay and allowances.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were appointed as Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) in the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) Headquarters in 2019 through direct recruitment. As per the Recruitment Rules (RRs) notified on 13.08.2024, the next promotional post from UDC is that of Assistant, and the mode of recruitment provides that 50% of the posts are to be filled by promotion from amongst UDCs with ten years' regular service, failing which by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), and failing both, by Direct Recruitment (DR). It was pointed out that in the year 2024, 51 posts of Assistant were available, comprising 13 posts under the promotion quota, 18 under LDCE, and 20 under DR. However, out of the 13 promotion-quota posts, only two SC category candidates in the feeder cadre were 4 eligible and were accordingly promoted, leaving 11 posts unfilled. In such circumstances, the statutory RRs mandate that these 11 unfilled vacancies must be filled through LDCE of the same year, i.e., LDCE 2024. Contrary to the mandate of the rules, the respondents issued a notification dated 01.10.2024 inviting applications only for 18 LDCE posts, excluding the 11 unfilled promotion quota vacancies. Thereafter, the applicants immediately approached the authorities, who informed them that the vacancy position was not final and was subject to change. The applicants, being eligible, applied for LDCE 2024, qualified in the examination declared on 20.01.2025, and were even asked to furnish vigilance clearance on 04.02.2025. Despite this, the repeated representations of the applicants dated 03.10.2024, 15.01.2025, and 24.01.2025 requesting inclusion of the 11 unfilled promotion-quota posts in the LDCE quota as per RRs were rejected by the respondents vide order dated 20.02.2025. The ground taken by the respondents--namely, that diverting the DPC quota vacancies to LDCE would negatively impact the chances of candidates who may become eligible for LDCE 2025--was argued to be wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules, which do not provide for any carry forward of promotion vacancies to the next year. The respondents subsequently promoted 15 candidates under LDCE 2024 through order dated 24.02.2025, again ignoring the 11 unfilled promotion quota posts. This action is said to be arbitrary, contrary to the statutory rules, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and detrimental to the vested rights of the applicants, who were fully eligible and qualified for LDCE 2024.
5
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the RRs clearly stipulate that 50% of vacancies shall be filled by promotion, and if suitable candidates are not available, the remaining shall be filled through LDCE, failing which by direct recruitment. He argues that in 2024, out of 13 promotion-quota posts, only 2 candidates were eligible. Therefore, the remaining 11 unfilled posts were mandatorily required to be filled through LDCE 2024. As such, non- filling of these vacancies through LDCE 2024 is violative of the statutory scheme.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the RRs do not contemplate carrying forward unfilled promotion-quota vacancies to the next year. The phrase "failing which by LDCE" clearly mandates immediate filling of such vacancies through the LDCE of the same year. The decision to carry forward 11 vacancies to 2025 is ultra vires the rules. c) Arbitrary Reasoning in Impugned Order: The reason cited by the respondents--that filling the 2024 unfilled posts through LDCE 2024 would affect the chances of candidates who may become eligible in 2025--is legally untenable. He submits that candidates becoming eligible in 2025 cannot claim any right over the vacancies of 2024, and the respondents' reasoning is contrary to settled service jurisprudence.
5. Learned counsel also argues that the respondents have given undue consideration to individuals who are not presently eligible, while ignoring the rights of candidates who were not only eligible in 2024 but have also qualified LDCE 2024. This action is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, and mala fide.
6
6. Learned counsel further argues that as per available information, no UDC is likely to become eligible for promotion for several years due to the requirement of ten years' regular service. Therefore, keeping the promotion-quota vacancies unfilled and carrying them forward is irrational and contrary to administrative efficiency.
7. Learned counsel further adds that the impugned actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, devoid of reason, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and hence violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the applicants' right to be fairly and equally considered for promotion is a legal and fundamental right in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dwarka Prasad & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2004 (1) ATJ (SC) 591, wherein it was held that: "The right to be considered for promotion on fair and equal basis without discrimination may be claimed as a legal and fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants, submits that the amended Recruitment Rules provide for recruitment to the post of Assistant in ICMR through: 60% promotion, comprising 25% DPC from UDCs with 10 years' service, failing which by LDCE, and failing both by direct recruitment; and 35% LDCE from UDCs with 5 years' service, failing which by deputation and failing both by direct recruitment; and 40% Direct Recruitment through competitive examination. He further submits that out of 78 sanctioned posts, 51 7 were vacant in 2024: 13 under 25% DPC quota, 18 under 35% LDCE quota, 20 under Direct Recruitment quota. The DPC recommended only two officials for promotion under 25% quota; 11 vacancies remained unfilled.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Applicants' request to divert unfilled DPC vacancies to LDCE is wholly misconceived because LDCE is a competitive and merit-based examination, not qualifying in nature. He submits that diverting DPC vacancies to LDCE will adversely affect future eligible UDCs, particularly those becoming eligible for LDCE 2025. He also submits that several representations were received opposing diversion, fearing long-term adverse career progression.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Applicants participated in LDCE 2024. They failed due to low merit, thereby exhausting their opportunity for that year. Having failed in the competitive process, they cannot seek judicial intervention to alter vacancy distribution for their personal benefit. It is a settled principle that the promotion/selection process lies within the administrative domain, and therefore the Tribunal may not interfere unless illegality or arbitrariness is shown.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that action taken by Respondents is strictly as per Rules. Both DPC and LDCE processes were conducted independently and simultaneously as per the notified quotas. 18 vacancies for LDCE were duly notified vide circular dated 01.10.2024. The Applicants were given equal opportunity to appear in LDCE.
8
12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the competent authority will decide on the unfilled DPC vacancies of 2024 and any fresh vacancies in 2025, so that all eligible candidates receive equal and fair opportunity.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that 38 UDCs were eligible for LDCE 2024. 5 additional UDCs will become eligible for LDCE 2025. Diverting DPC vacancies now would unfairly deprive these upcoming eligible candidates.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Recruitment Rules do not create a vested right in candidates to demand diversion of unfilled vacancies from DPC to LDCE.
15. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
16. In order to adjudicate the present OA, the principal issue which has arisen for determination is as follows:
Whether, under the Recruitment Rules of 13.08.2024, the respondents were mandatorily required to divert the 11 unfilled promotion-quota vacancies to LDCE 2024, or whether the decision to keep such vacancies unfilled and carry them forward to 2025 was lawful.
17. A plain reading of the RRs demonstrates a clear sequential scheme: Promotion → failing which LDCE → failing both DR. The phrase "failing which" ordinarily conveys that if eligible candidates are not available, promotion cannot be made, the next prescribed 9 mode must be invoked. The RRs do not contain any clause permitting carry-forward of unfilled promotion-quota vacancies to the next year. Therefore, in absence of any such enabling provision, the general rule is that the vacancy of a particular recruitment year has to be exhausted through the prescribed modes within the same cycle.
18. The reasoning of the respondents that diversion of vacancies would affect candidates who may become eligible in 2025 cannot be accepted. A candidate who is not eligible in the relevant recruitment year cannot claim a right to be considered against that year's vacancies. This principle is well-settled in service jurisprudence. The applicants, on the contrary, were fully eligible for LDCE 2024 and have even qualified the examination.
19. We also find that the respondents' contention that diversion of promotion-quota vacancies to LDCE would adversely affect long-term career progression of future eligible candidates is not grounded in the RRs. Administrative convenience cannot override statutory rules. Once the RRs prescribe a mandatory sequence, the authorities must adhere to it in filling vacancies of the year.
20. The respondents' further argument that applicants have "failed in merit" and therefore cannot seek judicial intervention is misconceived. The applicants were competing for only 18 notified LDCE posts, whereas 11 additional posts which should have been notified under LDCE 2024 were illegally withheld. Had these posts been included, the field of selection and merit list would have correspondingly expanded. Thus, the applicants' right to fair consideration stands adversely impacted.
10
21. It is also noted that retaining the 11 vacancies unfilled, despite acknowledgment that no UDC would become eligible for promotion for several years due to the requirement of ten years' service, defeats administrative efficiency and leads to unnecessary stagnation in the cadre. 10. The impugned rejection order dated 20.02.2025 is based on considerations not contemplated in the statutory scheme and ignores the mandatory consequence flowing from the phrase "failing which by LDCE." Such reasoning is arbitrary, extraneous, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
22. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we held as under:-
(i) The Recruitment Rules of 13.08.2024 mandate that unfilled promotion-quota vacancies must be filled in the same recruitment year through LDCE, and the respondents were not legally empowered to carry forward the 11 unfilled vacancies of 2024 to 2025.
(ii) The action of the respondents in notifying only 18 LDCE vacancies for 2024, without including the 11 unfilled promotion-quota vacancies, is contrary to the statutory RRs and is therefore unsustainable.
(iii) The reasoning that diversion of vacancies would adversely affect candidates who become eligible in 2025 is irrelevant, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16.
(iv) The applicants, having been eligible and having qualified LDCE 2024, were entitled to fair and equal consideration against the full quota of LDCE vacancies for the year 2024, which has been denied to them.11
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 is quashed and set aside and the following directions are issued to the respondents:
(i) to treat the 11 unfilled promotion-quota vacancies of 2024 as part of the LDCE 2024 quota in terms of the Recruitment Rules;
(ii) to redraw the merit list of LDCE 2024 by considering all 29 LDCE vacancies (18 originally notified + 11 unfilled promotion-
quota posts);
(iii) to grant consequential promotions, if due, to the applicants and other meritorious candidates on the basis of the revised select list, with all attendant benefits except arrears of pay, which shall be notional; and
(iv) to complete the above exercise within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
23. With the above directions, the present Original Application is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A) Member (J) /lg/