Service rule interpretation on promotion panels extends to similarly placed employees; rejection order cannot be justified by later affidavit reasons.

A prior construction of the service rules on preparation and operation of promotion panels was treated as governing similarly placed employees in the same cadre, so the benefit could not be confined to the original applicant. An administrative rejection order was held to stand or fall on the reasons recorded in the order itself, and later justifications in a counter affidavit could not cure the defect. On that basis, denial of the benefit in identical circumstances was treated as arbitrary and inconsistent with equality, and retrospective promotion with consequential seniority benefits was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier Tribunal decision regarding preparation and operation of promotion panels under the service rules applied to the petitioner as a similarly placed employee. (ii) Whether the rejection order could be sustained by reasons supplied later in the counter affidavit and whether the petitioner was entitled to retrospective promotion and consequential seniority benefits.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier Tribunal decision regarding preparation and operation of promotion panels under the service rules applied to the petitioner as a similarly placed employee.

Analysis: The Tribunal decision had construed the service rules governing panel preparation and held that a panel could not be kept alive beyond the prescribed period. The judgment also determined the effect of the rules on promotions already made from earlier panels and the consequence of failure to prepare annual panels. Since the petitioner and the successful applicant in the earlier proceeding were recruited in the same service cadre and the controversy turned on the same statutory framework, the decision was treated as one that governed all similarly placed persons, not merely the original applicant.

Conclusion: The earlier Tribunal ruling was applicable to the petitioner as a similarly placed employee.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection order could be sustained by reasons supplied later in the counter affidavit and whether the petitioner was entitled to retrospective promotion and consequential seniority benefits.

Analysis: The validity of an administrative order must stand on the reasons stated in the order itself and cannot be improved upon by additional grounds raised later in affidavit form. The only ground in the impugned order was the alleged inapplicability of the earlier Tribunal decision, and no material distinction was shown between the petitioner and the beneficiary of that decision. Denial of the same benefit in identical circumstances was held to be arbitrary and violative of equality.

Conclusion: The rejection order was unsustainable and the petitioner was entitled to promotion as Assistant from 1981 and consequential promotion as Superintendent from 16.6.2000 with attendant benefits.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned rejection was set aside, and retrospective service reliefs were granted to the petitioner on the same footing as the similarly placed employee in the earlier proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prior adjudication has finally construed the governing service rules on panel preparation and promotion, similarly placed employees are entitled to the same benefit, and an administrative order refusing that benefit must be judged only on the reasons stated in the order itself.

---