ORDER :

Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2014 whereby the official-respondents have transferred the post of Professor from ‘Shareer Rachna’ Department where the petitioners were working to the Department of ‘Kayachikitsa’in Ayurvedic Medical College, Paprola, District Kangra, which according to them, has extinguished chances of their promotion.

3. According to the petitioners, initially they were appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officers. Lateron, the petitioner in CWPOA No.6875 of 2019 was appointed as Lecturer in the Ayurvedic Medical College at Paprola, District Kangra, in the year 2002 and petitioner in CWPOA No. 6733 of 2019 was appointed as Lecturer in the Ayurvedic Medical College at Paprola, District Kangra, in the year 2012 and thereafter promoted as Senior Lecturers on 27.09.2006 and 10.04.2015, respectively.

4. According to the petitioners, they can be promoted as Readers after working for a minimum period of five years in the capacity of Senior Lecturers. But, the respondents issued a Notification dated 14.11.2014 whereby they have withdrawn the post of Professor, as aforesaid, thereby diminishing the chances of promotion of the petitioners.

5. It is conceded at the Bar and otherwise proved on record that both the petitioners were not eligible for the post of Reader, let alone, the post of Professor, for which the Reader is a feeder post.

6. In such circumstances, we really wonder how the learned Tribunal could have entertained these petitions, much less pass an order of status quo on 27.02.2016.

7. For, it is more than settled that though right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service, however, mere chances of promotion are not. The rule which merely affects the chances of promotion cannot be regarded as one varying a condition of service.

8. The law, in this regard, is too well settled to be reiterated. However, we may, at this stage, refer to one of the latest judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Air Commodore Naveen Jain vs. Union of India and others (2019) 10 SCC 34 wherein Clause-17 of the Promotion Policy dated 20.02.2008 for promotion to the post of Air Marshal was challenged inter alia on the ground that the same was contrary to the established principles of law pertaining to promotion on the basis of “merit-cumseniority”. In view of the principles governing the right of promotion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the grievance of the appellant is in respect of lost chances of promotion inasmuch as he had attained the age of superannuation before the vacancy arose. Dismissing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made these pertinent observations in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 which read as under:-

“13) In State of Mysore & Anr. v. G.B. Purohit & Ors. 1967 SLR 753 (SC), this Court held that a right to be considered for promotion, is a condition of service but mere chances of promotion are not. The rule which merely affects the chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying a condition of service. The said judgment was quoted with approval in later judgment reported as Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 317, wherein this Court held as under: (SCC p.329, para 15)

“15…..All that happened as a result of making promotions to the posts of Deputy Collectors division wise and limiting such promotions to 50 per cent of the total number of vacancies in the posts of Deputy Collector was to reduce the chances of promotion available to the petitioners. It is now well settled by the decision of this Court in State of Mysore vs. G.B. Purohit(1967) SLR 753 (SC) that though a right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service, mere chances of promotion are not. A rule which merely affects chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying a condition of servi