Back
: First in Does Not Guarantee Promotion at
The has held that an employee's placement as first in a does not by itself create a right to promotion merely because vacancies arise during the list's validity. Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed a petition by Ravi Kant Thakral, a former Deputy General Manager of , who sought promotion to General Manager with effect from , along with consequential benefits.
A Disputed Promotion Exercise
Thakral joined the Bank in
and rose to the position of Deputy General Manager in
. In
, the Bank conducted a promotion exercise for elevation from TEG/S-VI to TEG/S-VII. Three officers were declared successful, 15 others were placed in a
for consideration against future vacancies up to
, and a
of three officers was prepared to account for
"the probability of any additional vacancies arising during the year."
Thakral stood first in this
, which remained valid until
.
According to Thakral, vacancies subsequently arose in the General Manager cadre, including one following the retirement of an officer on , and another upon the appointment of an officer as Executive Director of another bank. He argued that being first in the entitled him to promotion against the first such vacancy. He also pointed to past instances where candidates had been promoted and relied on a communication proposing 46 General Managers for the Bank, contending that the working strength had been allowed to fall to 43 without Board approval.
The Bank's Discretion Under Policy
The Bank did not dispute that candidates had been promoted on earlier occasions, but argued that inclusion in the list did not confer any right to promotion. It relied on the , which gave management discretion to keep vacancies unfilled and to decide whether to operate a waitlist.
The Court examined Clauses 11.8 to 11.10 of the
. Clause 11.8 expressly states that
"the Management may keep the vacancies unfilled"
even if sufficient officers are available, and that the Chairman & Managing Director may keep vacancies
"under reserve for administrative reasons."
Clause 11.10 provides that the MD & CEO "may release" promotions from the waitlist as and when vacancies arise.
No
Justice Narula held that the policy leaves a measure of
with the Bank.
"A
serves an evident administrative purpose; it enables the Bank to draw upon an already assessed pool of officers if an additional vacancy is required to be filled. But preparedness to fill a vacancy is not the same thing as a commitment that every vacancy which arises must be filled,"
the Court observed.
The Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in , which held that unless the governing rules provide otherwise, the existence of vacancies does not cast a legal duty upon the State to fill them, and inclusion in a does not confer an to appointment merely because vacancies exist.
The Court also noted that the entire
remained unoperated—no candidate below Thakral was promoted.
"There was, thus, no departure from the Petitioner's
or any instance of a less meritorious candidate being preferred over him,"
the Court stated.
Distinguishing Precedents
The Court distinguished the cases relied upon by Thakral— , , and —noting that those cases involved changes in selection criteria after the process had commenced. In the present case, Clauses 11.8 to 11.10 were part of the from the outset, and the Bank's decision not to operate the could not be characterized as a change in the rules of the game.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Thakral's position as first in the gave him precedence if the list was operated, but did not oblige the Bank to operate it. The decision reinforces the principle that placement in a waiting or does not create a to appointment, and that to keep vacancies unfilled is recognized under the governing policy.
