2026 Supreme(All) 660

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.
Priyanka Yadav – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 12445 of 2024
Decided On : 29-05-2026

A one-time option to elect superseded promotion rules must be exercised strictly within the prescribed regulatory period. Failure to adhere to such temporal constraints extinguishes the right. Furthermore, discrimination claims fail absent evidence that individuals junior in the seniority list were preferred over the petitioner.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Promotion - Eligibility and Limitation - Regulation providing for a one-time option to choose between existing and prior rules for promotion - Limitation period for exercising such option is mandatory and non-extendable - Provisions aimed at mitigating hardship for employees must be invoked within the stipulated timeframes specified by the regulatory authority. (Paras 40, 41, 46 and 47)

(B) Promotional Exercise - Right to consideration - An employee has no inherent right to be promoted under repealed rules unless a valid option is exercised strictly within the prescribed time limit - Any claim to be governed by superseded rules lacks legal enforceability once the remedial window has closed. (Para 47)

(C) Discrimination - Equality of opportunity - To establish a valid claim of hostile discrimination in matters of selection, an applicant must demonstrate that a person junior in rank or seniority has been granted preferential treatment, or that clear arbitrariness has occurred - Mere exclusion from promotion where all promoted individuals are senior does not satisfy the threshold for unconstitutional inequality. (Para 48)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, holding a teaching position, sought promotion to a higher designated post claiming the benefit of a regulatory clarification that allowed an option to choose between prevailing and superseded promotion rules. The deadline for exercising this one-time option expired before the petitioner submitted her application. The respondent authority promoted several individuals based on current guidelines. The petitioner challenged the denial of her promotion, citing discriminatory treatment and the availability of vacant posts.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the limitation period for exercising the one-time promotional option was mandatory. As the petitioner sought the benefit of this option after the clearly defined three-year expiry period, she failed to establish any enforceable right to be considered under the repealed regulatory framework. Furthermore, no evidence of hostile discrimination was presented, as no individuals ranked lower than the petitioner in the seniority list were promoted.

Issues: Whether the petitioner possessed a valid legal right to be considered for promotion under superseded regulations after the expiry of the mandatory limitation window and whether the impugned selection process violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi: A regulatory option to elect for superseded promotion rules is a time-bound incentive; failure to exercise this right within the specified period results in the forfeiture of the privilege. Aspirants cannot claim a right to promotion against vacancies under extinct rules once the remedial window provided by the regulatory authority has lapsed.

Result: Petition dismissed.