AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon'ble Dr. Anand Singh Khati, Member (A):
The present Original Application (O.A.) has been preferred by the applicant, who was initially appointed as Nursing Attendant under the respondents (Safdarjung Hospital), seeking the following reliefs :-
“(i)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned dated 07.12.2022 (Annex.A/1) and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to promote the applicant to the post of Medical Record Technician w.e.f. 7.12.2022 with all the consequential benefits including arrears of difference of pay and allowances.
(ii)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dt.5.12.2022 (Annex.A/2) declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the notified R. Rules and therefore, directing the respondents conduct review DPC to consider the eligible persons for promotion from the due date as per notified R. Rules with all the consequential benefits.
(iii)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.”
Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was initially engaged as a Nursing Attendant on a daily wage/ad-hoc basis and was subsequently regularized in Level-1 of the pay matrix on 24.09.1999 (with regular service counting from 14.12.1998) at Safdarjung Hospital. The recruitment to the post of Medical Record Technician (MRT) is governed by the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, Medical Record Technician Recruitment Rules, 2018. As per the statutory rules, the post is filled 100% by promotion from Group 'C' staff (Level-1) having 8 years of regular service and 5 years of experience in the Medical Record Department (MRD) along with a Medical Records Training Certificate or Diploma from a recognized institution. According to him, respondent No. 2 issued a circular dated 02.07.2021 inviting applications for filling up vacant posts of MRT. A common seniority list of Nursing Attendants was issued on 07.07.2022, wherein the applicant was placed at Sl. No. 156, while Sh. Rakam Singh and Respondent No. 4 (Shamsher Singh Rawat) were placed below him at Sl. No. 168 and 178 respectively.
A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 05.12.2022 and recommended Sh. Rakam Singh and Respondent No. 4 for promotion to the post of MRT, leading to the issuance of the impugned promotion order dated 07.12.2022. Simultaneously, on the very date of the DPC (05.12.2022), the hospital administration issued an office order clarifying that Group-C Level-1 employees working in the Record Rooms of CIO, Medical Oncology, NEB, and SSB departments would be considered at par with employees working in the main Medical Record Department for duties, responsibilities, and experience.
Aggrieved by his non-selection and the promotion of his juniors, the applicant submitted a representation dated 12.12.2022, which yielded no response, prompting the filing of the present O.A.
According to the learned counsel, the post of Medical Record Technician is a non-selection post under the Recruitment Rules and is required to be filled purely on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness from amongst eligible candidates. The applicant, being senior to the promotees in the cadre of Nursing Attendant, has been superseded illegally. According to him, the applicant possesses the requisite 8 years of regular service in Level-1 and acquired his Medical Records Training Certificate from 01.01.2014 to 30.06.2014. He also possesses extensive operational experience in the Medical Record Department spanning multiple periods (1998–2000, 2008–2011, and June 2022 onwards), fulfilling the total 5 years' experience requirement. He alleged that the administration changed the rules at the last minute to help the chosen candidates qualify. As per the counsel, it is well-settled service jurisprudence that statutory Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be amended, overridden, or superseded by way of an executive or administrative clarification.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the O.A. and supported the impugned order.
At the outset, learned counsel for the official respondents contended that while the applicant satisfies the general length of service, he did not possess the mandatory 5 years of experience in the Medical Record Department after successfully completing the Medical Records Training Course on 30.06.2014. According to her, the applicant's earlier experience periods (1998–2000 and 2008–2011) were entirely pre-training, leaving him with nil post-training experience on the crucial date. She argued that the promotees (Sh. Rakam Singh and Respondent No. 4) fulfilled all statutory parameters, including the requisite post-training experience in record-keeping units. She highlighted that the office order dated 05.12.2022 did not amend the 2018 Recruitment Rules; rather, it merely clarified functional equivalence, recognizing that Record Room units functioning under specialized departments (CIO, Oncology, NEB, SSB) perform identical core medical record functions integral to hospital administration.
On the other hand, the counsel representing respondent No. 4 submitted that the respondent no. 4 (Mr. Shamsher Singh Rawat) has been continuously working in record units of Safdarjung Hospital since May 2005, and his experience certificates were duly verified and placed before a duly constituted DPC. According to him, mere seniority does not confer an automatic right to promotion when statutory benchmarks and specific post-qualification experience criteria are prescribed. Reliance was placed on Hon’ble Apex Court precedent establishing that promotions governed by statutory rules must strictly adhere to prescribed eligibility (The Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha vs. Dr. K. Santhakumari, (2001) 3 SCR 519.
During arguments, the counsel handed across the Bar a copy of the relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. and batch in Civil Appeal No. 9746/2011 and batch wherein the hon’ble Supreme Court examined the rules governing promotions and held that ‘candidates do not acquire a vested right to be considered for promotion simply because vacancies arose under pre-amended or prior rules. Unless a statutory rule explicitly dictates otherwise, eligibility for promotion must be determined according to the rules prevailing at the time the vacancy/consideration process takes place, rather than the date when the vacancy originally arose’.
He also handed over a copy of the order of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A No. 797/2015 dated 01.06.2022 in M. Rajesh & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors., wherein this Tribunal dealt with departmental interpretation of qualifying service, equivalence of feeder cadres, and adherence to strict statutory prerequisites for promotion within central government hospitals or allied setups.
Also a copy of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in WA No. 2616/2022 dated 12.02.2026 in The Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. M. Rajesh Kumar wherein the Madras High Court set aside a Single Judge's order that had granted notional promotion retrospectively to an employee. The High Court held that an employee cannot claim a promotion or retrospective benefits unless they have strictly fulfilled all mandatory service and training prerequisites prescribed under the rules at the relevant time. The Court emphasized that if an employee did not meet the specific eligibility requirements earlier due to their own service profile or lack of qualifying experience, they cannot later turn around and claim entitlement through judicial intervention or executive relaxations.
It was further pointed out that the applicant has subsequently been promoted to the post of Medical Record Assistant (MRA) in 2025, rendering the present challenge academic and devoid of mala fide. Additionally, an objection regarding non-joinder of necessary parties was raised, noting that co-promotee Sh. Rakam Singh ought to have been impleaded.
Rebutting the counter replies, the applicant reiterated that his initial engagement and continuous deployment in medical record functions establish his complete eligibility under the rules. He pointed out that the 2018 rules clearly require five years of experience specifically in the main Medical Record Department. The administration could not suddenly change this through an executive order issued on the day of the DPC just to fit the private respondents
He further asserted that the non-joinder objection is untenable as the main promotion order and necessary records are squarely under challenge, and the primary grievance emanates from arbitrary administrative relaxation tailored to favor juniors.
In the written submissions the counsel has reiterated the facts of the case and contended that the private respondents are not only junior to him but have also failed to fulfill the mandatory eligibility criteria of five years of experience in the Medical Record Department of Safdarjung Hospital. He further submitted that to arbitrarily accommodate these two individuals, Respondent No. 3 passed an administrative order on 05.12.2022—the exact date of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)—purporting to amend or relax the recruitment rules by declaring that Group-C employees in Level-1 working in the record rooms of CIO, Medical Oncology, NEB, and SSB departments would be considered at par with those in the Medical Record Department. He argued that the impugned order dated 05.12.2022 is entirely illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the notified recruitment rules, as the Medical Superintendent has no authority or power to amend statutory rules via an executive order issued on the eve of a DPC.
Furthermore, drawing parallels to an identical situation concerning one Sh. Dinesh Kumar, the applicant emphasizes that the respondents' attempt to disregard pre-training experience or introduce post-training constraints not found in the notified rules is designed solely to extend undue benefits to juniors. Because the rules of the game cannot be changed midway after the initiation of the selection process under the circular dated 02.07.2021, the impugned promotion order dated 07.12.2022 and the circular dated 05.12.2022 are mala fide, illegal, and violative of settled law, warranting the allowance of the Original Application by this Tribunal.
The official respondents in her written submissions reiterating the facts of the case resubmitted that while the applicant possesses the general length of service, he does not possess the mandatory five years of experience in the Medical Record Department after successfully completing his Medical Records Training Course, leaving him with nil post-training experience on the crucial date. In contrast, the official respondents contended that the selected private respondents (Sh. Rakam Singh and Sh. Shamsher Singh Rawat) fully satisfied the statutory criteria, including possessing the required post-qualification experience of over five years in record departments. Furthermore, it was submitted that there is no discrimination against the applicant, as other similarly situated candidates who similarly lacked adequate post-training experience were also not considered for promotion. The respondents also pointed out that the applicant failed to properly implead co-promotee Sh. Shamsher Singh Rawat as a respondent in the O.A., rendering the application flawed on grounds of maintainability, and ultimately prayed that the Original Application be dismissed with costs.
In the written arguments filed by the Respondent No. 4, the counsel submitted that he fully satisfied the prescribed eligibility conditions, possessed the requisite qualifications and certified experience supported by official records, and was duly recommended and promoted by the competent DPC and authority. He further contended that the office order dated 05.12.2022 did not amend or substitute the statutory Recruitment Rules, but merely clarified that employees in Level-1 working in record rooms of specific departments (CIO, Oncology, NEB, and SSB) would be treated at par regarding duties and experience, and that the nature of duties performed by Respondent No. 4 was directly connected with medical record management.
Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Raj Kumar & Ors., (supra), Respondent No. 4 emphasized that a government servant has no vested right to promotion merely by virtue of seniority, and that seniority only operates among employees who satisfy the mandatory eligibility conditions on the relevant date—conditions which the applicant failed to meet due to a lack of post-training experience. He pointed out that the O.A. is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the applicant challenged a common promotion order affecting multiple officials (including Sh. Rakam Singh) without properly impleading them, and failed to establish any mala fides, procedural illegality, or legal infirmity in the DPC's proceedings.
Arguing that the challenge is merely an attempt by the applicant to substitute his own assessment of eligibility, Respondent No. 4 prayed that the O.A be dismissed and his promotion be upheld.
We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and carefully gone through the pleadings, documents placed on record, Recruitment Rules and the judgments relied upon by the parties.
We observed that while the applicant may hold a higher position on the seniority list of Nursing Attendants, seniority alone does not confer an automatic or vested right to promotion. Seniority operates solely among candidates who satisfy the mandatory eligibility criteria on the crucial date. We also noted that the relevant Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the post of Medical Record Technician explicitly mandate eight years of regular service in Level-1, a Medical Records Training Certificate/Diploma, and five years of experience in the Medical Record Department which is apparent from the Notification dated 04.09.2018. The same is quoted below :-
“Qualification:
100 percent by promotion from Group 'C' staff of Safdarjung Hospital with eight years regular service in level 1 in the pay matrix (Rs. 18000-56900) and having five years experience in Medical Record Department in Safdarjung Hospital with Medical Records Training Certificate or Diploma from Government recognized Hospital or Institute.”
Also by reviewing the comparative service data (as highlighted in tabulated form in the written statement), we found that the applicant's prior experience (from 1998–2000 and 2008–2011) occurred before he completed his mandatory training course in 2014. For better understanding the aforesaid table is quoted below :-
| Sl. No. | Name | Duration of Training Course | Period of Experience | Post Training Experience |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Manoj Kumar (Applicant) | 01.01.2014 to 30.06.2014 (Annexure R-4) | 01.01.1998 to 07.02.2000 13.12.2008 to 10.10.2011 (All prior to training) (Annexure R-5) | NIL |
| 2 | Rakam Singh | 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2015 (Annexure R-6) | 15.07.2015 to 05.07.2021 (Annexure R-7) | 5 years 11 months |
| 3 | Shamsher Singh Rawat | 01.01.2014 to 30.06.2014 (Annexure R-8) | 01.05.2005 to 15.02.2022 (Annexure R-9) | 7 years 7 months |
Consequently, his qualifying post-training experience stood at nil on the relevant date, whereas the selected private respondents fulfilled the statutory post-qualification experience requirements. Regarding the administrative order dated 05.12.2022, we observed that it did not unlawfully amend or rewrite the statutory recruitment rules. Rather, it served as a functional classification clarifying that Level-1 employees working in record rooms of specific departments (such as CIO, Oncology, NEB, and SSB) performed duties equivalent to those in the Medical Record Department, and that the official records and certificates of Respondent No. 4 were duly verified and accepted by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Hence, we found no procedural illegality, biasness, or legal infirmity in the DPC's proceedings, noting that the selection was founded strictly on certified service records and compliance with the applicable rules.
In view of the aforesaid observations, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant failed to establish any statutory violation, arbitrariness, or entitlement to promotion in the absence of the mandatory post-training qualifying experience. Accordingly, the O.A is dismissed, upholding the promotion of Respondent No. 4 and the recommendations made by the DPC pursuant to the order dated 07.12.2022. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.