Eligibility for promotion does not confer automatic right to promote; only consideration is guaranteed, and administrative procedures dictate DPC timelines, which are not mandatory.

ORDER

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 25th September, 2020 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, of dismissal of O.A. No. 1385/2020 preferred by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner superannuated from the service of the respondents Indian Railways, on 31st August, 2018, from the post of Senior Assistant Financial Advisor; post retirement, he filed the O.A, from which this petition arises, contending that he acquired eligibility to be considered for promotion to the next post of Group 'A'/Junior Scale in Indian Railway Accounts Service (IRAS), in the year 2016; though there was an obligation on the part of the respondents, to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion of the petitioner, but the DPC was not convened for the financial years 2016-17 and 2017-18 and was held ultimately, only on 28th October, 2019 but by which time the petitioner had already superannuated. The relief, in the O.A, of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion, in the financial years 2016-17 and 2017-18, was claimed.

3. CAT has dismissed the O.A, reasoning that (i) it is well settled that mere acquisition of qualification for promotion does not confer any right to be promoted and the right, if at all, is only to be considered as and when promotions are effected; (ii) the calendar framed by Department of Personnel & Training, providing for DPCs to be held regularly, is neither mandatory nor entails any consequences and does not confer any right on the employees - it is merely advisory and a step towards good administration; (iii) the failure to convene DPC in a particular year, cannot be termed as illegal or a serious lapse on the part of the administration; (iv) DPC is held, as per administrative exigencies and convenience; (v) Supreme Court has repeatedly, including in Union of India Vs. K. K. Vadhera, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625 held that there can be no retrospective promotion; (vi) the retired employee can be extended the benefit of notional promotion only if any employee junior to him was promoted with effect from the date anterior to the date of retirement of such senior employee; and (vii) the petitioner, who superannuated on 31st August, 2018, had not pleaded that any employee junior to him was promoted to the post of Group 'A'/Junior Scale in IRAS, before that date and thus the question of granting any relief to the petitioner did not arise.

4. This writ petition was drafted, without even studying the complete impugned order, as would be obvious from the order dated 25th March, 2021, when this petition had first come up before us, and in pursuance to which order the counsel for the petitioner has obtained a complete copy of the order and placed the same before us.

5. The only arguments of the counsel for the petitioner are, that (i) CAT has decided the O.A. hastily; (ii) the representation made by the petitioner was neither considered by CAT nor did CAT direct consideration thereof by the respondents; (iii) the petitioner was not even given an opportunity to place before CAT, the order dated 31st August, 2017 of CAT, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. No. 180/00564/2017 titled P. Mathew Varghese vs Union of India and which order is now filed as Annexure P-9 to the writ petition.

6. We have perused the said order and find that the applicant P. Mathew Varghese therein had approached CAT, prior to his superannuation and had sought direction for holding