Promotion is not an absolute right; administrative delays do not confer rights to claim promotion, and mere eligibility does not guarantee promotion.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench pertaining to the order passed in O.A.No.1403 of 2012 dated 12.01.2017 and quash the same.

1. The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the final order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12.01.2017 in O.A.No.1403 of 2012.

2. The Employees State Insurance Corporation represented by the Director General is the writ petitioner before this Court.

3. The first respondent instituted Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the petitioner to grant notional promotion with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

4. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was appointed as Assistant Director in the year 1987 and promoted to the post of Deputy Director in the year 1997. He was promoted to the post of Joint Director on 27.02.2009 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2012.

5. The contention of the first respondent is that there was an enormous delay in convening DPC, which resulted in denial of promotion to the first respondent to the post of Regional Director. Though the first respondent's name was considered and included in the Panel of Officers fit for promotion to the post of Regional Director/Director, he was not considered, since DPC was not convened prior to his date of retirement on 30.11.2012. It is not in dispute that DPC was convened in the year 2014 and at the time of considering the names of eligible Officers for promotion to the post of Director, the first respondent was not in service. Thus, his name was not considered for promotion.

6. Mr.K.Prabhakar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner would submit that the first respondent was fit for promotion during the relevant point of time. Though there was no impediment for grant of promotion, his case was not considered, since DPC was not convened. At the time of consideration, the first respondent was not in service and he was allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2012. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in granting notional promotion without considering the fact that none of the Juniors to the first respondent was promoted to the post of Director in the Panel wherein, the name of the first respondent was included.

7. Mr.R.Malaichamy, the learned Counsel for the first respondent would strenuously oppose by stating that the first respondent was eligible for promotion to the post of Director. His name was included in the Panel of Officers fit for promotion to the post of Director. Since there was an administrative delay in convening DPC, the Tribunal considered and directed the petitioner to assess the vacancies pertaining to the year 2012, and further, directed to consider the case of the first respondent for grant of notional promotion to the post of Director and pay consequential monetary benefits. He would rely on two Office Memorandum's issued by the Government of India.

8. However, perusal of the said Office Memorandum's would reveal that they are unconnected with the issues relating to grant of notional promotion to the Officer.

9. Governing principles for grant of promotion are to be considered in the present case.

(a) Promotion perse cannot be claimed as an absolute right by an employee.

(b) However, consideration for promotion is a fundamental right of an employee.

(c) All promotions are to be granted strictly in accordance with the service Rules in force.

(d) Administrative delay in grant of promotion would not confer any right to an employee to claim on the basis that the vacancies were available at the time of his or her eligibility.

(e) Mere eligibility for promotion would not provide a cause for institution of a petition before