Efficiency Test Cannot Be Enforced Retrospectively: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Common Promotion Exam for Different Recruitment Batches

Promotion Cannot Be Made a Competitive Process Between Different Year Recruits - In a landmark judgment Rajasthan High Court struck down the common Efficiency Test imposed on Junior Personal Assistants (JPAs) from different recruitment years for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer. The Court held that the petitioners—appointed as JPAs in 2016—could not be forced to compete in the same efficiency test alongside candidates recruited in 2020, as this would unfairly diminish their promotion opportunities and violate the principles of fairness in service jurisprudence.

The Court ruled that "the scheme of promotion under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 does not contemplate a joint efficiency test for candidates recruited in separate financial years. Promotions must follow the cycle of vacancies occurring within each recruitment year, and forcing earlier recruits to compete with later entrants is contrary to the established framework of service law."

"Seniority-Based Promotion Cannot Be Diluted by Imposing a Joint Efficiency Test" – High Court Upholds Petitioners' Rights
The petitioners, ten JPAs employed under the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, challenged the notice issued by the Registrar (Examination) on May 1, 2024, requiring them to appear in the Efficiency Test for promotion. They argued that their seniority should be the primary criterion for promotion and that an efficiency test should not apply retroactively when earlier promotions were granted without it.

They pointed out that in 2020, several JPAs from their batch had been promoted without undergoing an Efficiency Test, and their legitimate expectation was that they would receive the same treatment. However, the High Court administration rejected their representation for exemption, requiring them to compete with candidates recruited in 2020.

The Court agreed with the petitioners, ruling that "seniority is not merely a preference but an established criterion for career progression. If a rule allows for efficiency testing, it must be applied consistently. The previous batchmates of the petitioners were granted promotion without an efficiency test, and denying the same benefit to the petitioners now amounts to arbitrary discrimination."

"Rules Cannot Be Relaxed Arbitrarily" – High Court Recognizes Limited Discretion of the Chief Justice in Service Matters
The respondents, including the Rajasthan High Court administration, defended the imposition of the Efficiency Test by citing Rule 30 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, which grants the Chief Justice discretionary power to relax recruitment conditions. They contended that "the previous exemption from the Efficiency Test was an exceptional decision due to administrative constraints and cannot serve as a precedent for future promotions."

The Court acknowledged that "while the Chief Justice has discretion under Article 229 of the Constitution to prescribe service conditions, such discretion must be exercised uniformly. Selectively granting exemptions in one instance and denying them in another, without reasonable justification, results in arbitrary treatment of similarly placed employees."

"Common Efficiency Test Violates the Scheme of Promotion Under Clause 15" – High Court Strikes Down the Joint Exam
The High Court examined Clause 15 of the Staff Service Rules, 2002, which governs promotions to the post of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer. It found that promotions must follow a structured rotation—25% based on seniority-cum-efficiency (with an Efficiency Test) and 75% based on seniority-cum-merit (without an Efficiency Test).

The Court ruled that "vacancies arising in a given financial year should be filled by eligible candidates from that year, not by merging candidates from later recruitment batches into the same promotion process. Allowing candidates appointed in 2020 to compete for vacancies that arose before their recruitment unfairly dilutes the rights of senior employees."

Rejecting the administration’s argument that a common Efficiency Test was merely a benchmark for selection, the Court observed that "the concept of a uniform benchmark does not override the structured rotation system laid down in the Rules. The test must apply only within each recruitment year’s cycle."

Final Judgment: High Court Directs Segregation of Promotion Batches, Orders Immediate Result Declaration
The Rajasthan High Court set aside the portion of the promotion process that forced JPAs from different recruitment years to compete in a joint Efficiency Test. The Court directed that:

•    Vacancies arising before March 2, 2020, must be filled exclusively from the 2016 JPA batch.
•    Junior Personal Assistants appointed in 2020 cannot be considered for vacancies occurring prior to their recruitment.
•    The results of the conducted Efficiency Test must now be published, ensuring that candidates from different recruitment years do not compete for the same vacancies.
The Court further clarified that "while we do not disturb past promotions, all future recruitment processes must ensure that efficiency tests and promotions follow the designated seniority cycle without merging different recruitment years into a single selection process."
This judgment reinforces the principle that promotions in government service must be conducted in a structured and fair manner, ensuring that senior employees are not unfairly disadvantaged by arbitrary changes in rules. The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that:
•    Promotion rules cannot be altered arbitrarily after initial appointments have been made.
•    A common efficiency test for different recruitment batches violates the seniority-based promotion framework.
•    Previous relaxations granted in efficiency testing create a legitimate expectation for equal treatment.
•    Efficiency tests must be held separately for each recruitment year’s eligible candidates.
By striking down the joint Efficiency Test for multiple recruitment years, the Rajasthan High Court has reinforced the importance of stability, consistency, and fairness in promotion processes for government employees.
Date of Decision: 03 March 2025