Promotion eligibility is contingent on meeting established service rules, including probation requirements, and resignation affects entitlement to retrospective promotion.

JUDGMENT : 

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent to promote him to the post of Principal Project Engineer [“PPE”] in Pay Level 13A, from the date on which he became eligible for the said promotion, alongwith all consequential benefits. He also challenges communications dated 09.03.2023 and 11.08.2023, by which such promotion was denied to him.

A. FACTS

2. The petitioner joined the respondent as an Assistant Software Engineer on 13.09.2004. He was promoted to the post of Software Engineer with effect from 17.10.2006, and to the post of Senior Software Engineer with effect from 17.10.2009. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Project Engineer in 2013, granted three increments in lieu of accelerated promotion from 2016, and further promoted to the post of Senior Project Engineer [“SPE”] on 29.06.2017.

3. The petitioner resigned from the services of the respondent on 17.10.2022, stating that his last day of work would be 16.01.2023. The respondent accepted his resignation by a communication dated 10.11.2022, with effect from 16.01.2023, subject to completion of certain formalities. He was relieved of his duties with effect from 16.01.2023 and joined his new employment at Pune Metro, under the Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Limited, on 17.01.2023.

4. The present writ petition concerns the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of PPE from the post of SPE. It is not disputed that, for promotion to the post of PPE, the qualifying service requirement was four years’ service in the grade of SPE, which the petitioner attained in the year 2021. However, it is the petitioner’s case that no Departmental Promotion Committee [“DPC”] was constituted in the year 2021 at all, or in May/June 2022, as required by an Office Order of the respondent dated 04.03.2009. The DPC was constituted to consider promotion from the post of SPE to PPE only on 26.10.2022, by which time the petitioner had already submitted his resignation. The petitioner made a representation on 14.11.2022 in this regard, but was not considered by the DPC. In its recommendations dated 02.12.2022, the DPC noted that the petitioner’s name had been removed from the earlier eligibility list, in view of his resignation. Pursuant to the DPC’s recommendations, a promotion order was issued on 12.01.2023, excluding the petitioner’s name. The promotions were made retrospective from the dates of their eligibility.

5. The petitioner made further representations in this regard, even after he had been relieved by the respondent. In fact, on his very last date of service with the respondent, i.e., 16.01.2023, he acknowledged that his promotion was not considered, as his resignation had been accepted. However, he requested issuance of a communication stating that he was due for such promotion since June 2021, and stated that it would be helpful in his new employment. He again made representations for promotion on 30.01.2023, 01.03.2023, 13.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 26.05.2023, 11.06.2023, 19.07.2023, 21.07.2023, and 02.08.2023, which were rejected by the impugned communications dated 09.03.2023 and 11.08.2023. While rejecting his representations, the respondent noted that he had already resigned from service, and that the promotions required a probation period of six months, which he was not in a position to fulfill.

B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

6. Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner remained an employee of the respondent until 16.01.2023, when he was finally relieved. His eligibility for promotion to the post of PPE was fulfilled in the year 2021 itself, much prior to submission of his resignation on 17.10.2022. However, he had not been considered for promotion, as the respondent did not hold a DPC at the relevant time in 2021 or 2022, thus de