Cadre-wise promotion in a transferable service cadre prevails over section-wise exclusion where rules do not authorise it.

Promotion from Technologist Grade II to Technologist Grade I was required to be treated cadre-wise because the governing statute, 1967 Rules and Regulations, appointment terms, and actual service practice showed a common transferable cadre rather than separate section-wise units. An employee's posting in a particular section could not lawfully defeat consideration for promotion when incumbents moved across sections and common seniority was maintained. Promotions made on a section-wise basis were therefore vulnerable where they excluded eligible employees without a clear statutory basis. The stated principle is that promotional consideration cannot be confined to the employee's initial section posting unless an express rule authorises that restriction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether promotion from Technologist Grade II to Technologist Grade I in the Engineering Department was to be made cadre-wise or section-wise; (ii) whether the respondent's claim for consideration for promotion could be defeated on the basis that he was posted in a particular section; and (iii) whether the promotions made by the Institute in 1980 were valid.

Issue (i): Whether promotion from Technologist Grade II to Technologist Grade I in the Engineering Department was to be made cadre-wise or section-wise.

Analysis: The governing statute and the 1967 Rules and Regulations did not establish a legally sustainable section-wise promotional regime for Technologist Grade II. The appointment letter did not confine the employee to any one section, the respondent had in fact been transferred across sections, and the actual practice showed common seniority and inter-sectional movement. The Institute's later reliance on section-wise seniority lists and advertisements for direct recruitment did not justify a section-wise promotional rule for promotion.

Conclusion: Promotion was required to be considered cadre-wise and not section-wise.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent's claim for consideration for promotion could be defeated on the basis that he was posted in a particular section.

Analysis: Since the post of Technologist Grade II was treated in practice as a common cadre and incumbents were transferable across sections, the respondent's initial posting in one section could not lawfully curtail his promotional prospects. The denial of consideration on the sole ground of posting in a particular section was arbitrary and unsupported by the applicable service framework.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to be considered for promotion along with other eligible Technologist Grade II employees irrespective of section of posting.

Issue (iii): Whether the promotions made by the Institute in 1980 were valid.

Analysis: The 1980 DPC process considered promotions on a basis that did not lawfully exclude the respondent from consideration for vacancies beyond a single section. The material showed that one junior was promoted without proper consideration of the respondent's claim, while the Institute failed to establish a valid statutory basis for section-wise exclusion. The earlier unchallenged finding in favour of cadre-wise promotion also stood final as against the Institute.

Conclusion: The promotions were not immune from challenge to the extent they excluded the respondent from lawful consideration.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decision was affirmed, and the Institute's promotional policy could not lawfully restrict consideration for promotion from Technologist Grade II to Technologist Grade I on a section-wise basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service rules and actual working practice show a common transferable cadre, promotional consideration cannot be confined to the employee's initial section posting unless a clear statutory rule authorises such restriction.

---