Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Jagdish, was regularised as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 2 March 1994. He claimed that he should have been promoted as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) with effect from 12 April 1996.

The respondents rejected his claim on the ground that as of 12 April 1996, he had not completed the mandatory three years of regular service as an LDC, which was a prerequisite for promotion to the post of UDC.

Subsequently, the petitioner was granted regular promotion as UDC with effect from 20 November 1999. Aggrieved by the refusal to grant promotion from 12 April 1996, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by filing OA No. 2718/1999.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion on the claimed date. Challenging the Tribunal’s order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to promotion as UDC with effect from 12 April 1996 despite not completing three years of regular service as LDC.
  2. Whether the petitioner could claim parity with other employees who were allegedly promoted earlier.
  3. Whether ad hoc service rendered prior to regularisation could be counted towards the qualifying service required for promotion.
  4. Whether the Tribunal committed any error in rejecting the petitioner’s claim for retrospective promotion.

 

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that:

  • Certain employees, namely Madan Singh and Amit Dayal, who were junior to him, had been promoted as UDCs earlier.
  • Since those employees received promotion before him, he should also be granted promotion from 12 April 1996 on the principle of parity.
  • His ad hoc service rendered prior to 2 March 1994 ought to have been taken into account while calculating the required qualifying service.
  • If such service were counted, he would satisfy the eligibility condition for promotion on the claimed date.
  • Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in B.P. Verma vs Union of India to support the claim.

 

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents argued that:

  • The Recruitment Rules clearly required three years of regular service as LDC for promotion to UDC.
  • On 12 April 1996, the petitioner had not completed the prescribed qualifying service.
  • Therefore, he was not eligible for consideration for promotion on that date.
  • The alleged promotions of other employees could not confer a legal right upon the petitioner if those promotions were granted under different circumstances or contrary to the rules.
  • The petitioner had already been promoted as UDC from 20 November 1999 after becoming eligible under the applicable rules.

 

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.

The Court observed that:

  • It was undisputed that three years of regular service as LDC was a mandatory requirement for promotion to UDC.
  • The petitioner had not completed three years of regular service by 12 April 1996 and therefore lacked eligibility for promotion on that date.
  • The example of Madan Singh did not assist the petitioner because there was no assertion that Madan Singh lacked the required qualifying service at the time of his promotion.
  • The case of Amit Dayal had not even been properly raised before the Tribunal.
  • Even assuming that some employees had been promoted contrary to the rules, the petitioner could not seek a similar illegal benefit.
  • The Court applied the established legal principle that “two wrongs do not make a right.”
  • If the petitioner believed that promotions granted to others were illegal, he ought to have challenged those promotions directly rather than seeking a similar benefit.
  • The Court also agreed with the Tribunal that ad hoc service could not automatically be counted for determining eligibility in the circumstances of the case.
  • The judgment in B.P. Verma vs Union of India was held to be distinguishable on facts and therefore not applicable.

Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s order and dismissed the writ petition.

 

Important Clarification

Mere Parity Cannot Override Eligibility Conditions

An employee cannot claim promotion solely because another employee allegedly received promotion in violation of the rules.

Completion of Qualifying Service is Mandatory

Where Recruitment Rules prescribe a minimum period of regular service, promotion cannot be claimed before fulfilling that requirement.

Illegal Benefit Cannot be Claimed as a Matter of Equality

The principle of equality under service law does not permit repetition of an illegality. The Court reiterated that an illegality committed in one case does not create a legal right in favour of others.

Ad Hoc Service Does Not Automatically Count

Ad hoc service rendered prior to regular appointment cannot automatically be counted for promotion unless the applicable rules and legal principles specifically permit such counting.

 

Sections / Service Rules Involved

  • Recruitment Rules governing promotion from Lower Division Clerk (LDC) to Upper Division Clerk (UDC)
  • Principles relating to qualifying service for promotion
  • Service Jurisprudence concerning seniority and retrospective promotion
  • Reliance on:
    • Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association vs State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715
    • State of West Bengal vs Aghore Nath Dey (1993) 3 SCC 371
    • B.P. Verma vs Union of India (1997) 10 SCC 433

Link to Download the Order

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2002:DHC:6755-DB/62429102002CW69012002_125536.pdf

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.