The right to be considered for promotion is fundamental, but does not guarantee automatic promotion upon vacancy; effective grants govern promotion rights.

JUDGMENT :

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for the following reliefs:

“(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the action of the respondents in promoting respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer and thereafter to the post of Chief Engineer, vide orders dated 18.10.2012, for the vacancy year 2011–2012, be declared illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Engineers Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Regulations, 1969 as well as the relevant circulars and be quashed and set aside.

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to convene a Review Departmental Promotion Committee for the vacancy year 2011–2012 for the post of Deputy Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer, after considering the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with law.

(iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Deputy Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer, against the vacancy year 2011–2012, with all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay, seniority and arrears.

(iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed in the engineering cadre of the Respondent No.1 –Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (in short, ‘JVVNL’) and in the course of service, held the post of Superintending Engineer. The promotions to higher posts in the cadre are governed by the Engineers Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Regulations, 1969, (in short, ‘Regulations of 1969’) read with the relevant circulars and instructions issued from time to time and are effected through selection by a Departmental Promotion Committee (in short, ‘DPC’). It is to be noted that for the vacancy year 2011–2012, the crucial date for determining eligibility for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer was 01.04.2011 and an eligibility/seniority list dated 21.09.2012 was prepared for the said vacancy year, wherein the petitioner was placed within the zone of consideration, however, the petitioner superannuated from the service on 30.09.2011.

3. The Respondent No.1, for the aforesaid vacancy, convened a DPC on 18.10.2012, pursuant to which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer and on the very same day, separate orders were issued promoting the said respondents further to the post of Chief Engineer. Consequent upon the promotions, two vacancy remained available at the level of Deputy Chief Engineer for the vacancy year 2011–2012, and as a direct consequence thereof, the petitioner was not promoted against the said vacancy year.

4. Being aggrieved by his non-promotion and the manner in which the promotion process was undertaken, the petitioner submitted representations before the competent authority seeking reconsideration of his claim; however, the same did not yield any redressal and for the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that two posts of Deputy Chief Engineer & Chief Engineer were vacant during vacancy year 2011-2012, and the petitioner was within the zone of consider