Back
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
Navneet Kishore Dixit – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding service promotion disputes due to vigilance enquiries. (Para 1) |
| 2. submissions regarding parity in promotion and current status of vigilance clearance. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. judicial directive to constitute a departmental promotion committee and process withholding benefits. (Para 4) |
| 4. formal disposal of the writ petition. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
(Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, C.J.)
The petitioner is currently working as a Superintendent Engineer (Civil) in the Border Roads Organisation (BRO). There are more than ten (10) vacancies in the cadre of Chief Engineer and he was due to be considered for promotion as the Chief Engineer. However, on account of the pendency of a vigilance enquiry, he was not considered for promotion.
[2] It was submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sudesh Joshi, that many others who were similarly situated as the Petitioner were considered for promotion and were promoted during the pending of the present litigation. Thereby, this Court, vide Order dated 19.02.2026, passed the following
Order:
“It is submitted by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, on instructions, that there are ten (10) vacancies exis
When a vigilance inquiry, previously obstructing a promotion, is technically cleared, the employing authority is mandated to promptly convene a promotion committee to assess the candidate's eligibili....
The right to be considered for promotion is fundamental, but does not guarantee automatic promotion upon vacancy; effective grants govern promotion rights.
Promotion rules proviso deems seniors eligible with minimum three years regular service, placed above junior eligible via combined ad hoc and regular service, barring department from delaying DPC unt....
Promotion should not be denied to public servants based solely on the pendency of criminal proceedings, especially when there are no disciplinary actions in place.
Indefinite withholding of promotion due to pending vigilance proceedings is unjust, and employees have a right to timely consideration for promotion, even when criminal proceedings are ongoing.
Promotion eligibility must be based on fairness and non-arbitrariness, ensuring all eligible candidates are considered regardless of category.
Denial of promotion based solely on pending criminal proceedings constitutes unjust punishment, especially when trials are unduly delayed.
Promotions in public service are prospective and take effect from the date duties are assumed, not from earlier dates, emphasizing a distinction between the right to be considered for promotion and t....
Promotions take effect from the date granted, not from the date of vacancy, and retrospective seniority cannot be assigned.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
