Shikha Baraily & Others vs Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was selected and appointed in the junior scale of Indian Information Service (IIS) Group „B‟ on 22.04.2013. The next promotion is

to the senior scale, on completion of 3 years in junior scale. 50% of senior scale posts were earmarked for promotion from the feeder category.

The new Recruitment Rules (RRs), framed on the basis of the recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), were published in the year

2016. The standing in the feeder category was enhanced to 5 years and the allocation for promotion category was reduced to 33%. However, a

clause was added to the effect that the vacancies in the senior scale, that existed prior the notification of new RRs, shall be filled in accordance with

the un-amended, i.e., 1989 RRs.

The applicants contend that though they have completed 3 years of service in junior scale and though there existed adequate number of vacancies

in the senior scale prior the publication of the amended RRs, they were not extended the benefit of promotion. The respondents issued an

advertisement in 2017 proposing to fill 72 posts in senior scale through direct recruitment.

This O.A. is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants, as per the 1989 RRs, on completion of 3 years of

service for promotion to the senior scales; and to quash an advertisement issued for direct recruitment against the 72 posts.

The applicants contend that a valuable right had accrued to them on completion of 3 years of service in the junior scale and though the amended

RRs published in 2016, they were entitled to be considered and promoted against senior scale according to the 1989 rules.

The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that in the 2016 RRs itself, a specific clause to the effect that the vacancies that arose

before the publication of those RRs, would be dealt with in accordance with 1989 RRs. It is stated that the applicants were found not eligible, even

according to the 1989 RRs at the relevant point of time. Various other contentions urged by the applicants are denied.

We heard Mr. Anurag Ojha, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. R V Sinha with Mr. Amit Sinha and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for

respondents, in detail.

The basic facts are not in dispute. The applicants were appointed to the junior scale of IIS Group „B‟, on 22.04.2013 or thereafter. The eligibility

to be considered for promotion to the senior scale, was on completion of 3 years in the junior scale. Even while amending the RRs, as a sequel to the

recommendations of 6th CPC, the respondents incorporated a clause to the effect that the vacancies that existed prior to the publication of the RRs

would be dealt with in accordance with 1989 RRs.

In the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that the crucial date for fixation of vacancy is the 1st April of the concerned year and though there existed

vacancies as on 01.04.2016, the applicants did not acquire the eligibility even under the 1989 rules since they joined service on 22.04.2013 or

thereafter. Naturally, the applicants became eligible only in the next year, which in turn would be reckoned from 01.04.2017. By that time, the 2016

RRs were published. The applicants can be considered for promotion only under the 2016 RRs. Paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit reads as under:

“13. That since, all the incumbent Junior Grade officers of IIS Group „B‟ including the petitioners in the instant O.A. have joined the service on

or after 22.04.2013 and they have not completed required minimum 3 years of qualifying service as on 01.04.2016, which is a crucial date for

promotion of these officers, whose APARs are being written on financial year-wise based, as per the model calendar which has come to effect from

01.01.2015, were not promoted. Even after taking the minimum qualifying service as 3 years as per the erstwhile Recruitment Rules, as they have

completed 3 years of service on or after 22.04.2016 i.e. 22 days after the date of crucial date of promotion i.e. 01.04.2016, these officers were not

eligible for promotion and therefore, they were not promoted to Senior Grade of IIS Group „B‟. If, they could join the service on or before

01.04.2013 and completed 3 years of service on or before 01.04.2016, they could get eligibility of minimum qualifying service of 3 years as on

01.04.2016 and they could have been promoted as per the provisions of erstwhile Recruitment Rules. Even after taking the minimum qualifying service

as 3 years as per the erstwhile Recruitment Rules, the petitioners will be eligible for promotion on 01.04.2017 in accordance with revised Model

Calendar, as their APARs are being written financial year-wise. Since, the erstwhile Recruitment Rules have been revised and the revised rules have

been notified on 26.09.2016, much before the crucial date for eligibility for promotion i.e. 01.04.2017, in which the minimum qualifying/eligibility service

for promotion from Junior Grade of IIS Group to Senior Grade of IIS Group B is 5 years, they were not eligible for promotion even on 1st April, 2017

also. They were eligible for promotion only from April, 2019 onwards, as they will be completing 5 years of regular service at that time. Moreover, the

provisions in the revised Recruitment Rules are of prospective effect from 26.09.2016, i.e. the date of notifying the Recruitment Rules but not of

retrospective effect. Hence, the incumbent officers are governed by the provisions contained in the revised Recruitment Rules but not as per the

provisions contained in the erstwhile recruitment rules. Hence, these officers have not been promoted. They have been intimated accordingly vide this

Ministry‟s O.M. dated 29.07.2016.â€​

The respondents have dealt with each and every aspect urged by the applicant in a detailed and minute manner. Learned counsel for applicants is

not able to point out any serious defect in the contentions advanced by the respondents.

Once it is emerge that the applicants did not become eligible to be considered for promotion to senior scale in the year 2016, even under the old

RRs, it cannot be said that there was any infraction of their rights. The only reason on account of which they could not earn promotion, is that they

were not eligible even under the old RRs.

We do not find any merit in this O.A. It is accordingly dismissed.

All the pending M.As. shall stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs