No Right to Promotion, But Consideration a Must: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that while an employee does not possess a vested right to promotion, there exists a legitimate right to be considered for promotion.

A Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, while allowing the appeal, said

“Although the departmental proceedings had initially resulted in a finding of guilt and the imposition of a penalty, the same was set aside by the Government in 2009, as reflected in Annexure P/4. In light of this, the appellant could not have been disqualified from consideration for promotion in 2019. A writ petition challenging the denial was also filed that year. Given these circumstances, the Court held that the appellant must be considered for promotion, irrespective of any disqualification on account of age. If found eligible, he shall be promoted with effect from 2019, and all consequential benefits shall be granted, as the denial was based on a punishment that had already been annulled."

Court said that the appellant got absolved of the departmental and criminal charges at a later point, and therefore, the reasoning for denying consideration for promotion was totally flawed.

It is well established that while an employee does not possess a vested right to promotion, there exists a legitimate right to be considered for promotion during selection processes, provided the employee is not disqualified, Court added.

Brief Background

The appellant, a Police Constable serving in the State of Tamil Nadu, challenged denial of his promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.

Initially appointed on March 1, 2002, the appellant became eligible for promotion in 2019, pursuant to a notification inviting applications from eligible constables under the 20% departmental quota for in-service promotions.

Despite submitting his application, the appellant was denied consideration by communication dated April 13, 2019.

The Superintendent of Police cited a disciplinary penalty; postponement of the appellant’s next increment for one year without cumulative effect, imposed on May 9, 2005, as the basis for ineligibility under the applicable rules.

Case Title: P. Sakthi v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors.