praDipsinh B thakor vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED on 30 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

1. The applicant has filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs: “A) Your Honor may be pleased to admit and allow this application; B) Your Honor may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned inaction on the part of the respondent authorities not granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) with all consequential benefits as the petitioner is entitled to get the said promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in the interest of justice. C) Your Honor may be pleased to pass an appropriate order directing the respondent authorities to grant deemed date promotion to the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) w.e.f. 01/01/2016 with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. D) Your Honor may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned action on the part of the respondents wrongly granting promotion to the Respondent no.5 who is at all not qualified for the Post of Executive Engineer (Electrical), in the interest of justice. E) Your Honor may be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s) that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice; F) Your Honor may be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s) that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice; G) Your Honor may be pleased to pass an appropriate order or direction to the respondents authorities to grant deemed date promotions to the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer w.e.f 01/01/2020 as per BSNL MSRR – 2009 and thereafter to grant deemed date promotion to the petitioner to the next post, w.e.f. 01/01/2024 as per BSNL MSRR-2009/BSNLMSRR-2023 in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicants are as under: - 2.1 The applicant was appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Department of Telecommunications on 21.01.1991. He acquired the qualification of AMIE (Electrical Engineering) in 1997 and was subsequently absorbed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) upon its incorporation on 01.10.2000. P ANUKUMA

::3 :: OA No.302/2023

2.2 The applicant was initially appointed/promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer/Sub-Divisional Engineer (Electrical) on an officiating basis with effect from 26.02.2001. He was subsequently granted regular promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Electrical) (SDE) with effect from 16.02.2010 and joined the said post on 15.03.2010. 2.3 The applicant relies upon the BSNL Management Services Recruitment Rules, 2009, (MSRR 2009) and the subsequent instructions and clarifications concerning eligibility for promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer/Assistant General Manager (Electrical). According to him, upon completion of the requisite qualifying service, he became eligible for promotion but was not considered for the same. 2.4 The applicant submitted a representation dated 18.04.2023 seeking redressal of his grievance. He filed this OA on 25.09.2023. The representation was rejected by communication dated 30.10.2023, while the OA was pending.

3. The submissions made on behalf of the applicant are as follows. 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant possesses the requisite technical and educational qualifications for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical). 3.2 Learned counsel submits that upon completion of the prescribed qualifying service as SDE (Electrical), the applicant became eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher post. The respondents, however, failed to extend the benefit of promotion to him despite his fulfilling the applicable eligibility conditions. 3.3 Learned counsel has further contended that the promotion granted to respondent No. 5 is liable to be examined in the light of the educational qualifications prescribed under the relevant Recruitment Rules. Respondent No. 5 did not possess a degree in Electrical Engineering and was, therefore, not eligible for promotion to the post in question. P ANUKUMA

::4 :: OA No.302/2023

3.4 Learned counsel has also referred to the earlier proceedings before this Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and submits that the applicant’s claim for appropriate consideration for promotion deserves to be examined in accordance with the governing rules. 3.5 Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat dated 19.07.2011 in SCA No. 8786/2011 (Annexure A/5). He submitted that it shows that the promotion rules cannot be overridden by executive action. He also relied on the common order of this Tribunal dated 29.06.2016 in OA No. 394/2012 and OA No. 417/2012 (Annexure A-6). According to him, that order dealt with the eligibility conditions under MSRR 2009. It shows that the question of treating a diploma as equal to a degree has already been litigated, and that BSNL has long been aware of it. He further relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat dated 03.10.2016 in SCA No. 14581 of 2016 and dated 18.10.2016 in SCA No. 16060 of 2016 (Annexures A-7 and A-8). He submitted that, under these judgments, promotions in BSNL must meet the test of Articles 14 and 16. BSNL, he said, cannot promote to higher engineering posts, such as Executive Engineer or Superintending Engineer, officers who do not hold the minimum qualification laid down in the Recruitment Rules. 3.6 On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the OA be allowed and the promotion order dated 29.06.2018, concerning respondent No. 5, be set aside; and the respondents be directed to grant the applicant promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 01.01.2016 with all consequential benefits.

4. On the other hand, the respondents filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant. 4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant seeks retrospective promotion with effect from 01.01.2016 and also challenges the promotion order dated 29.06.2018, whereas the present OA was filed in 2023. It is contended that no satisfactory P ANUKUMA

::5 :: OA No.302/2023

explanation has been furnished for the substantial delay in questioning the promotion and that the applicant has not sought condonation of delay by filing an appropriate application. 4.2 In support of the objection concerning delay, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, and Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 and submitted that a stale claim for retrospective promotion cannot be revived merely by submitting a subsequent representation to the authorities. 4.3 It is submitted that the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by way of filing OA No. 417 of 2012, and the order dated 29.06.2016 passed therein was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 14581 of 2016 wherein the Hon’ble High Court upheld the relevant findings concerning the applicant’s claim to reckon his officiating service for promotional purposes. 4.4 Learned counsel has also referred to the proceedings culminating in the judgment dated 18.10.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 16060 of 2016, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat considered the challenge concerning the treatment of a diploma in engineering with ten years of technical experience as equivalent to a degree for the relevant promotional purposes. It is submitted that the applicant cannot reagitate the same issue which is already adjudicated by the competent courts and the same is barred by principles of res judicata laid down in the State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain (1977) 2 SCC 806 in which it was held that a plea which might and ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings cannot be permitted to be raised in subsequent proceedings. The present OA is therefore abuse of process of law. 4.5 During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & P ANUKUMA

::6 :: OA No.302/2023

Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 706 : (2010) 12 SCC 471, decided on 12.11.2009. 4.6 Learned counsel has relied upon the MSRR 2009, as amended from time to time. It is submitted that promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer/Assistant General Manager (Electrical) is governed by the prescribed eligibility conditions, including qualifying service and seniority-cum-suitability. 4.7 Further, it was submitted that the applicant was granted regular promotion to the post of SDE (Electrical) with effect from 16.02.2010 and, consequently, had not completed seven years of qualifying regular service as on 01.01.2017 and could be considered for promotion only in the year 2018, subject to the other applicable conditions. 4.8 Learned counsel has further stated that in the provisional seniority list dated 03.11.2016, the applicant was placed at serial number 380, whereas respondent No. 5 was placed at serial number 122. Respondent No. 5 was consequently considered for promotion in the promotion exercise culminating in the order dated 29.06.2018. 4.9 It is further submitted that promotions were subsequently granted to 53 officers by order dated 09.11.2022, but the applicant could not be promoted owing to his position in the seniority list and the claims of officers senior to him. Hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation and devoid of merit.

5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder and reiterated the submissions made in the OA. Additionally, the applicant submitted as under:- 5.1 That the Respondents’ preliminary objection regarding delay and limitation is completely misconceived because the grievance of the applicant arises from the continuous denial of promotion and consequential service benefits, which legally constitutes a continuing and recurring cause of action. The Applicant consistently pursued his grievances through official channels. It is settled law that every subsequent promotion exercise conducted by the Respondents, wherein an eligible employee is overlooked, gives rise to a fresh and distinct cause of action. P ANUKUMA

::7 :: OA No.302/2023

5.2 Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Hon’ble Principal Bench, New Delhi (O.A. No. 2905/2015, decided on 14.11.2025) held that the Office Memorandum dated 26.05.1977 relied upon by BSNL to create this equivalence was false and fictitious, and quashed the order dated 16.07.2015. Further, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Chandigarh Bench (O.A. No. 892/2018, decided on 14.10.2025) similarly set aside the 16.07.2015 equivalence policy. It is further submitted that a Review Petition (Diary No. 605/2026) filed against the Principal Bench judgment was dismissed on 24.02.2026, so that those findings have become final. It is also stated that contempt proceedings (CP No. 183/2026 before the Principal Bench and CP No. 45/2026 before the Chandigarh Bench) have been initiated against BSNL for failing to implement these judgments. Therefore, according to the applicant, the Respondents cannot sustain a defence built upon a quashed policy. 5.3 It is stated that as observed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 292/2015, the determination of educational equivalence falls strictly within the academic domain. According to the applicant, once the foundational document (O.M. dated 26.05.1977) was found to be false, all consequential promotions granted to Diploma holders became legally unsustainable. 5.4 Further, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant’s APAR/ACR entries for the relevant periods were entirely satisfactory, and he maintained a clean record with no adverse vigilance or disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the Applicant was legally entitled to be promoted to SDE (Electrical) effective from 10.06.2008 instead of 15.03.2010. Consequently, upon finishing his qualifying service he became fully eligible for consideration to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) effective from 01.01.2016, along with all subsequent promotional avenues.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. The following points arise for determination: P ANUKUMA

::8 :: OA No.302/2023

7.1 Whether the OA is within time for each of the reliefs claimed, and, if not, whether the delay should be condoned. 7.2 Whether the applicant is entitled to promotion as Executive Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 01.01.2016, or from any later date, and to the further promotions claimed in Prayer G.

8. The following facts are not in dispute: 8.1 The applicant joined the Department of Telecommunications as Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 21.01.1991. He was absorbed in BSNL from 01.10.2000. 8.2 He officiated as AE/SDE (Electrical) from 26.02.2001. He was regularly promoted as SDE (Electrical) with effect from 16.02.2010, and joined on 15.03.2010. 8.3 Both sides proceed on the basis that MSRR 2009 requires seven years of regular service as SDE for promotion of engineering graduates to Executive Engineer/Assistant General Manager (Electrical). The applicant does not dispute this condition. He disputes only the date from which his regular service should count. The relevant clause of the MSRR 2009 is reproduced herein below which reads as under:-

Sr. No . Grade (Equivalent) IDA Pay Scale in Rs Method of Recruitment Whethe r selectio n by Merit or Selectio n cum Seniorit y or Non- selectio n post Field of selection and the minimum qualifying service for promotion

Assistant General Manager/(Eq uivalent of STS i.e., E4) 14,500-350- 18,700 (Post Based Promotion) Promotion from Group “B” Executives Selectio n-Cum- Seniorit y

(a) From JTS grade having 4 years of regular service in the grade

(b) From regular SDE/AE or equivalent grade of concerned stream, who are engineering graduate/graduate (as detailed at note 2 below) from on Indian Institute/University P ANUKUMA

::9 :: OA No.302/2023

recognized under India Laws, with total qualifying service of 7 years as on “1 January of the year”

8.4 In the provisional seniority list dated 03.11.2016, the applicant was at serial number 380. Respondent No. 5 was at serial number 122. Respondent No. 5 was promoted by order dated 29.06.2018. By order dated 09.11.2022, 53 officers were promoted. The applicant was not among them. 8.5 The applicant made a representation on 18.04.2023 and filed this OA on 25.09.2023. The representation was rejected on 30.10.2023, while the OA was pending. No application for condonation of delay has been filed.

9. We first take up the question of delay. Under Section 21(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, an OA must be filed within one year from the date on which the final order is made or, where a representation has been made and no final order has been made on it within six months, within one year from the expiry of that period. Under Section 21(3), the Tribunal may admit an OA filed later only if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not filing it in time. The applicant has not filed any application for condonation of delay. The OA also gives no reason for the delay. 9.1 The OA raises three separate claims, and each arises on a different date. The first is the challenge to the promotion of Respondent No. 5 by order dated 29.06.2018. The second is the claim, made in para 5.4 of the rejoinder, that the applicant's regular promotion as SDE should date from 10.06.2008 and not 16.02.2010. The third is the claim to promotion as Executive Engineer (Electrical) from 01.01.2016, with the further promotions that follow from it. 9.2 The promotion of Respondent No. 5 was made on 29.06.2018. The period of one year for challenging it ended on 28.06.2019. This OA was filed on 25.09.2023, more than four years after that date. The representation dated 18.04.2023 was made nearly five years after the promotion. In Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a representation made on a stale claim, P ANUKUMA

::10 :: OA No.302/2023

and the decision on it, do not give a fresh starting point for limitation. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person aggrieved by the promotion of another must come to court within a reasonable time, and that settled promotions should not ordinarily be disturbed after many years. In Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that seniority and promotion must be questioned within a reasonable time, and that those who stay silent cannot later unsettle them. Respondent No. 5 has held the higher post since 2018. The applicant has offered no explanation for the delay. We, therefore, decline to condone the delay in respect of Prayer D. As the delay is not condoned, we express no opinion on whether Respondent No. 5 held the required educational qualification. This also disposes of the submissions in paras 3.3, 3.5, 5.2 and 5.3, insofar as they are directed against the promotion of Respondent No. 5. 9.3 The claim to an earlier date of regular promotion as SDE is not part of any prayer in the OA. It was raised for the first time in the rejoinder. A party cannot make out a new case in a rejoinder without amending the OA. In any case, the regular promotion dated 16.02.2010 was made more than thirteen years before this OA was filed. The applicant was aware of his grievance about counting his officiating service at least from the time of OA No. 417 of 2012 (para 4.3). No reason is given for the delay. We, therefore, decline to condone the delay in respect of this claim as well, and express no opinion on its merits. In view of this, we need not decide the respondents' objection (paras 4.3 and 4.4) that the question was already decided in OA No. 417 of 2012 and the connected Special Civil Applications. 9.4 The applicant submits (para 5.1) that the denial of promotion is a continuing wrong, and that each promotion exercise gives a fresh cause of action. A claim to be considered in a particular promotion round arises when that round is held. The order dated 09.11.2022, by which 53 officers were promoted, falls within one year before P ANUKUMA

::11 :: OA No.302/2023

the filing of this OA. The applicant says he was passed over in that round as well. We, therefore, examine his claim to promotion on its merits.

10. We now take up the applicant's claim to promotion as Executive Engineer (Electrical) from 01.01.2016. An employee has a right to be considered for promotion according to the Recruitment Rules. He has no right to be promoted from a date of his choice. As noted in para 8.3, promotion requires seven years of regular service as SDE. The applicant's regular service as SDE began on 16.02.2010. He completed seven years on 15.02.2017. He did not have the required service on 01.01.2016, nor on 01.01.2017. His service as SDE on an officiating basis from 26.02.2001 is not regular service. The applicant has not pointed to any provision of MSRR 2009 that allows officiating service to be counted for this purpose. His claim to an earlier date of regular promotion has not been entertained (para 9.3). The applicant was, therefore, not eligible for promotion on 01.01.2016. 10.1 The applicant relies on his satisfactory APAR/ACR record and the absence of any disciplinary or vigilance case (para 5.4). These matters are relevant to his suitability for promotion. They cannot make up for the qualifying service that the Rules require. 10.2 We next consider the later promotion rounds. According to the respondents (para 4.7), the applicant could be considered from the year 2018. The rejoinder does not dispute this. Promotion is made on seniority-cum-suitability. In the provisional seniority list dated 03.11.2016, the applicant was at serial number 380. The respondents state that he could not be reached in the rounds of 2018 and 2022 because officers senior to him had to be considered first (paras 4.8 and 4.9). The applicant has not shown that any officer junior to him was promoted in either round. He has not challenged the seniority list dated 03.11.2016 or the order dated 09.11.2022. He has, therefore, not shown any right to promotion in any round held before this OA was filed. P ANUKUMA

::12 :: OA No.302/2023

10.3 The applicant also relies (paras 5.2 and 5.3) on the orders of the Principal Bench in OA No. 2905/2015 and of the Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 892/2018, which concern the equivalence order dated 16.07.2015. These orders, and the pending contempt cases, may affect the promotion of particular officers. But no officer promoted under that equivalence, other than Respondent No. 5, is a party before us. The challenge to the promotion of Respondent No. 5 is barred (para 9.2). We cannot, in this OA, undo the promotion of officers who have not been heard. We, therefore, express no view on the effect of these orders, or of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat dated 18.10.2016 in SCA No. 16060 of 2016, on the equivalence question. 10.4 The claims in Prayer G, for promotion as Superintending Engineer from 01.01.2020 and to the next post from 01.01.2024, depend on the applicant first being promoted as Executive Engineer (Electrical) from 01.01.2016. As that claim fails, these claims also fail.

11. On examination of the issues, we find that:

(i) The challenge to the promotion of Respondent No. 5 by order dated 29.06.2018 was filed more than four years late, without any application or explanation, and we decline to condone the delay;

(ii) The claim to regular promotion as SDE from 10.06.2008 was raised for the first time in the rejoinder and is also barred, and we decline to condone the delay;

(iii) The applicant did not have seven years of regular service as SDE on 01.01.2016, and has not shown a right to promotion in any later round, being at serial number 380 in the seniority list; and

(iv) The claims for promotion as Superintending Engineer and to the next post depend on promotion to earlier grade and fail on this account. 11.1 The view we have taken on delay accords with the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In V. Vincent Velankanni v. P ANUKUMA

::13 :: OA No.302/2023

Union of India & Ors., 2024 INSC 748 (decided on 30.09.2024), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a seniority list, once listed, should not be reopened after a long period, as doing so would be unjust to employees whose rights to seniority, rank and promotion have crystallized in the meantime. In state of Tamil Nadu & Anr. V. R. Sasipriya & Anr., 2026 INSC 446 (decided on 04.05.2026), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that “a court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage the agitation of stale claims”, and that fence-sitters cannot be permitted to raise a dspute relating to seniority and consequential promotion” once third-party rights have crystallized.

12. In view of the above facts:

(i) The challenge to the promotion of Respondent No. 5 (Prayer D) and the claim to an earlier date of regular promotion as SDE are dismissed as barred by limitation, without any expression of opinion on their merits.

(ii) The claims for promotion as Executive Engineer (Electrical) from 01.01.2016 and to the higher posts (Prayers B, C and G) are dismissed on merits.

(iii) Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are disposed of.

(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.

(Sanjiv Kumar)

(Jayesh V Bhairavia)

Member (A)

Member (J)

//Anu// P ANUKUMA