Recommendations from a Departmental Promotion Committee do not confer an automatic right to promotion; formal approval by the Competent Authority is required for promotion to take effect.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:

“(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 Annexure P-1, in the interest of justice.

(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioner and to grant promotion on the post of Revenue Officer from the date of recommendation 07.02.2022 with all consequential benefit with interest of 18% within stipulated period, in the interest of justice.

(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

2. Facts of the case is that petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Revenue Officer and was at Sr. No.1 in the gradation list. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting dated 7.2.2022 recommended name of petitioner for promotion to the post of Revenue Officer from Assistant Revenue Officer. Proposal of the DPC for promotion of petitioner was sent to the competent authority for approval. In the meanwhile, petitioner stood retired on 30.9.2023. Petitioner thereafter preferred WPS No.6344/2024, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 7.1.0.2024 directing respondent authorities to take decision on the claim of petitioner for grant of promotion within 08 weeks. Subsequently, respondent No.3 vide order impugned granted notional promotion to petitioner on the post of Revenue Officer w.e.f. 27.9.2023, but refused to grant benefits of promotion w.e.f. 7.2.2022 on the ground that approval to grant promotion to petitioner has been granted by the Competent Authority only on 27.9.2023.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was found fit for promotion to the post of Revenue Officer and recommendation of DPC has also been approved by the Competent Authority, therefore, petitioner should have been promoted from the date of recommendation of DPC and not from the date of issuance of formal order. He submits that merely, on account of delay in approval of recommendations of DPC by the competent authority for promotion, which is not at all attributable to petitioner, denial of promotion to petitioner from the date of recommendation made by DPC is arbitrary and unsustainable. Recommendation of DPC should have been accepted by the Competent Authority without delay and therefore, petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Revenue Officer from the date of recommendation of DPC.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents supported the action of respondents and submits that petitioner has no right to get promotion from the date of DPC. The exercise done by the DPC is only recommendatory in nature, it would be for the Competent Authority to accept or not said recommendation. Recommendations of DPC does not give an enforceable right to the person who is recommended for promotion to higher post and promotion becomes effective only upon issuance of a formal order by the Competent Authority and not from the date of recommendation. In case at hand, the recommendations of DPC was approved by the Competent Authority only on 27.9.2023 and accordingly, petitioner was granted promotion w.e.f. 27.9.2023. He submits that non-grant of promotion to petitioner might have caused hardship but it cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal or contrary to the settled principle of law. Even petitioner has not placed on record any material to substantiate his claim that order of promotion would relate back to the date of recommendations made by the DPC. There is also no material on record to demonstrate that the dela