Consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of an employee, and once retrospectively promoted, the benefit of the retrospective promotion should be extended for further promotion.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ ofMandamus, directing the respondents to include the petitioner name before confirming the Provisional Seniority list for the post of office manager published by 1st respondent in by R.C.No.4101/SL2/2021, dated 01.03.2022, considering the petitioner Proforma and representation/objections dated 16.03.2022.)

1. The relief sought for in the writ petition is to direct therespondents to include the name of the petitioner before confirming the Provisional Seniority list for the post of Office Manager published by 1st respondent in by R.C.No.4101/SL2/2021, dated 01.03.2022, by considering the petitioner representation dated 16.03.2022.

2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as Clerical IV on 16.11.1992. His services were regularized by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dated 28.02.1994. There was an error crept in with reference to the designation of the writ petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner was placed in Clerical III Grade with effect from 3.10.1994. The petitioner was promoted in proceedings dated 07.10.2021. However, it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was retrospectively promoted to the post of Superintendent and on par with his junior with effect from 25.5.2017. Therefore, for all purposes, the petitioner is serving as Superintendent with effect from 25.05.2017 and such a retrospective benefit confirmed on the petitioner by the respondent cannot be denied for the purpose of granting further promotion to the post of Office Manager.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents made a submission that as per the Common Service Rules, the petitioner ought to have been served as Superintendent for a period of three years as the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent only in the year 2021 and he has not completed three years of service in the post of Superintendent.

4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, no doubt, actually serving as Superintendent for the past about 7 months. However, he was retrospectively granted promotion in the post of Superintendent from 25.05.2017 onwards. The error crept in respect of the service of the petitioner was rectified and consequently, the petitioner was retrospectively promoted with effect from the year 2017. Therefore, the benefit of further promotion, taking into consideration the retrospective promotion granted, cannot be denied to the writ petitioner.

5. Once an employee has been retrospectively promoted in a particular cadre/post, then the benefit of the retrospective promotion to be extended for grant of further promotion also. As per the Rules, three years of service in the post of Superintendent is contemplated. In the present case, the petitioner was retrospectively promoted as Superintendent from 25.05.2017. Thus, on completion of three years from the said date, the petitioner became eligible for inclusion of his name in the panel.

6. Promotion per se cannot be claimed as a matter of an absolute right. All promotions are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules in force. However, consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of an employee. Thus, the authorities, at the time of filling up of the post and while preparing the panel, must consider the names of all the eligible persons, who all are aspiring to secure promotion in accordance with the rules and in the order of seniority. This being the principles to be followed for grant of promotion, High Court cannot issue a direction to promote an employee based on his service or based on his representation. Only if the promotions are granted in violation of the rules in force, then alone the High Court can interfere with the order, but not otherwise.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court even recently ruled that promotion can never be claimed as a matter of right and the consideration for promotion alone is the right in the case of Union of India and another vs. Manpreet Sing