1. Writ petition challenging promotion of respondents to Deputy Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer for vacancy year 2011–2012. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 675
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.
Arjun Raj Mohnot, son of Shri Ugam Raj Mohnot – Appellant
Versus
Jaipur Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Secretary – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9 of 2013
Decided On : 11-02-2026
Important Points
Right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1), but there is no vested right to promotion. Promotions are effective from the date granted, and vacancies arising after an employee's retirement do not entitle them to retrospective promotion.
Subject
Service Law - Promotion and Seniority
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16(1) and 226 - Engineers Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Regulations, 1969 - Right to be considered for promotion vs. Right to promotion - An employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion when it arises in accordance with relevant rules under Article 16(1), but there is no fundamental right or vested right to promotion itself (Paras 11, 12). Promotions are generally effective from the date they are granted, such as the date of assumption of charge, and not from the date when the vacancy first arose (Para 11).
(B) Service Law - Promotion - Simultaneous promotion to a lower and then a higher post on the same day - If employees are promoted to a lower promotional post and subsequently promoted to a higher post on the same date, it does not create a retrospective vacancy in the lower post that entitles a previously superannuated employee to be promoted (Paras 13, 14).
Facts of the case:
An employee who had served as a Superintending Engineer retired from service on 30.09.2011. For the vacancy year 2011-2012, a Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 18.10.2012, where two other employees were promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer and, on the same day, further promoted to the post of Chief Engineer. The petitioner, who was within the zone of consideration, challenged this action, arguing that the simultaneous promotions created vacancies in the post of Deputy Chief Engineer that should have been filled by him prior to his retirement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2011, whereas the promotions of the other employees were finalized on 18.10.2012. Even if vacancies for the post of Deputy Chief Engineer were created by the subsequent promotion of those employees to the post of Chief Engineer, such vacancies arose after the petitioner's retirement and do not constitute a vested right for the petitioner to be promoted.
Issues: Whether the simultaneous promotion of employees to a lower and then a higher post creates vacancies in the lower post that entitle a superannuated employee to be granted promotion retrospectively.
Ratio Decidendi: While the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, there is no fundamental right to be promoted. Promotions are effective from the date they are granted, not from the date the vacancy arises. Consequently, vacancies appearing after an employee's superannuation cannot be claimed as a right for promotion.
Result: the present writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(B) Service Law - Promotion - Simultaneous promotion to a lower and then a higher post on the same day - If employees are promoted to a lower promotional post and subsequently promoted to a higher post on the same date, it does not create a retrospective vacancy in the lower post that entitles a previously superannuated employee to be promoted (Paras 13, 14).
Facts of the case:
An employee who had served as a Superintending Engineer retired from service on 30.09.2011. For the vacancy year 2011-2012, a Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 18.10.2012, where two other employees were promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer and, on the same day, further promoted to the post of Chief Engineer. The petitioner, who was within the zone of consideration, challenged this action, arguing that the simultaneous promotions created vacancies in the post of Deputy Chief Engineer that should have been filled by him prior to his retirement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2011, whereas the promotions of the other employees were finalized on 18.10.2012. Even if vacancies for the post of Deputy Chief Engineer were created by the subsequent promotion of those employees to the post of Chief Engineer, such vacancies arose after the petitioner's retirement and do not constitute a vested right for the petitioner to be promoted.
Issues: Whether the simultaneous promotion of employees to a lower and then a higher post creates vacancies in the lower post that entitle a superannuated employee to be granted promotion retrospectively.
Ratio Decidendi: While the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, there is no fundamental right to be promoted. Promotions are effective from the date they are granted, not from the date the vacancy arises. Consequently, vacancies appearing after an employee's superannuation cannot be claimed as a right for promotion.
Result: the present writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Mathur, Adv. Mr. Deepesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Piyush Balot. Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. P.S. Naruka, Adv.
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Mathur, Adv. Mr. Deepesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Piyush Balot. Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. P.S. Naruka, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued vacancies arose when respondents got simultaneous promotions; respondent argued vacancies accrued only after petitioner's retirement. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Promotions are effective from grant date, not vacancy date; no vested right to promotion itself. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Right to be considered for promotion is fundamental, but no vested right to promotion itself. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Writ petition dismissed as meritless; no grounds found to entertain it. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Is there a fundamental right to be considered for promotion?
Yes, the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. Is there a vested right to promotion itself?
No, employees do not have a vested right to promotion, only a right to be considered for promotion against available vacancies. (Para 11 , 13 )
8. When does a promotion become effective?
A promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, not from the date when the vacancy arises. (Para 11 , 13 )
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 consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer, as reflected in the Minutes of Meeting of the DPC, at Annexure-8 conducted on 18.10.2012. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer and, on the same day, were promoted to the post of Chief Engineer. The DPC minutes, at Annexure-8 clearly verify the fact of recommending the respondents for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. The promotion order of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to the post of Chief Engineer at Annexure-5, dated 18.10.20
