Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Bhanumathi T. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Agriculture Development and Farmers Welfare Department & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 1928 of 2022
Decided On : 08-04-2025
(A) Service Rules - Promotion - The petitioner, a retired Assistant Manager, contended that her promotion to Deputy Manager was unjustly delayed due to amendments in the Special Rules, which included Personal Secretaries as eligible for promotion. The court noted that the petitioner was considered for promotion but did not secure a higher rank. The court emphasized that the employer has discretion over promotion criteria and that the amendments were valid. (Paras 2 - 10 )
(B) Judicial Review - The court held that it cannot interfere with the employer's policy decisions unless there is a violation of statutory rules or principles of fairness. (Paras 9 - 10 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed her promotion was due but was delayed by amendments to the Special Rules that allowed Personal Secretaries to be considered for Deputy Manager positions. The petitioner participated in the selection process but was ranked lower than others.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and upheld the validity of the amended rules and the promotion process.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to promotion based on the unamended rules and whether the amendments were arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the employer's discretion in promotion criteria is valid and that the petitioner had no vested right to promotion under the old rules.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, both of the writ petitions are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
W.P.(C) No.1928 of 2022
2. Petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was working as Assistant Manager (HR) under the 2nd respondent. She has now retired from service. It is contended that the employees of the 2nd respondent Corporation are governed by Ext.P1 Special Rules wherein the post of Assistant Manager is included as G9 under the Human Resources (HR) Department and the post of Personal Secretary is included in the Secretarial Wing though the same is also included as G9. As per Ext.P1, promotion to the post of Deputy Manager is to be done by selection from Assistant Managers in G9 having degree with two years service. Though the promotion to the post of Deputy Manager was over due and the petitioner made request in this regard, no action has been taken to grant promotion to the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the information provided to another employee, who is the petitioner in the other writ petition, intimating that only on finalisation of the staff pattern steps could be taken for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager. Petitioner submits that promotions were effected in spite of the fact that the staff patterns were not finalised in respect of other posts as evident from Ext.P3. Ultimately by Ext.P4 the staff pattern was approved. Later the petitioner was called for an interview on the basis of Ext.P5 interview memo. The interview did not take place and the petitioner was informed as per Ext.P6 letter that another writ petition filed as W.P.(C) No.26260 of 2019 is pending consideration and therefore interview will be conducted in terms of the final verdict of the said case. While so steps were taken to amend Ext.P1 Rules. Draft Rules were approved by the Director Board of the 2nd respondent and forwarded to the Government and ultimately by Ext.P8 amended Rules were approved by the Government as per Ext.P7. By Ext.P8 the post of Personal Secretary is also included as a feeder category for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager. Based on the same Ext.P9 interview memo was served on the petitioner and due to Ext.P8 amended Rules petitioner is treated as junior to respondents 4 to 6 since they have entered G9 category earlier than the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that Ext.P7 can be made applicable only to those vacancies which arose subsequent to Ext.P7 amendment and two vacancies of Deputy Manager was available since 2018 and the petitioner being fully qualified for promotion to the said post prior to Ext.P7 amendment has to be promoted in terms of Ext.P1 Rules. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Initially when the matter came up for consideration on 19.01.2022 this Court has passed an interim order to the effect that the appointment to the post of Deputy Manager pursuant to the interview held on 22.01.2022 shall be effected only after obtaining further orders from this Court. Later taking note of the fact that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.05.2022 this Court as per order dated 07.07.2022 permitted appointment to the post of Deputy Manager, however making such appointments purely provisional and subject to further orders of this Court.
W.P.(C) No.26432 of 2022
4. Petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent Corporation on 04.12.1997 as an Assistant and promoted to the post of Assistant Manager on 21.11.2019. Petitioner also relying on Ext.P1 Special Rules submits that had promotions being effected within time, petitioner would have been appointed to the post of Deputy Manager. It is due to the pressure exerted by the Personal Secretaries in the establishment, the post of Personal Secretary was equated with the post of Assistant Manager and was put together in the feeder category of the post of Deputy Manager. Aggrieved by the same Ext.P2 representation was submitted by the petitioner and ot
Promotion criteria and eligibility are determined by the employer's discretion, and employees do not have a vested right to promotions under repealed rules.
Promotions in public service must be based on the qualifications of candidates at the time of vacancy occurrence, and not on the timing of appointments or subsequent qualifications of other candidate....
when a new post is created, the concept of Rules obtaining when the vacancies arose is inappiicable as what is created is a new post on account of re-structuring of the cadre.
Promotion rights are determined by the rules in effect at the time of consideration, not necessarily by those when vacancies arose.
A list of approved candidates for appointment to the posts by promotion, by transfer and by recruitment by transfer shall be prepared annually and the crucial date on which the candidates should have....
An employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, but not a right to retrospective promotion unless clearly justified by rules or exceptional circumstances.
(1) Right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to rules governing said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post fac....
Promotion in non-selection posts must adhere to seniority without subjective merit evaluations in the absence of unsuitability, reinforcing equality rights under the Constitution.
: : (1) Promotion is a condition of service and consideration thereof is a fundamental right.(2) When rules specifically provide that promotion has to be made on the basis of selection where merit is....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
