A mere inclusion in a promotion panel does not create a vested right to promotion; candidates are entitled only to consideration for promotion within valid administrative discretion.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has prayed for a direction for granting him promotion with retrospective effect on the basis of the panel prepared by the respondents on 13.11.2009.

2. Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner was appointed in the police service as a constable on 11.02.1977. He was promoted to the post of Naik on 05.04.1985 and thereafter to the post of Head Constable (Havilder) on 10.11.1987.

3. A DPC for drawing a panel of suitable candidates for further promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector was convened in the year 2009. The DPC prepared a panel of eligible suitable candidates for such promotion on 13.11.2009. The name of the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.35 in the list as an unreserved candidate. Though the department operated the panel partially, the petitioner was not promoted till his retirement on superannuation on 30.06.2016. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee agreed that till his retirement, none of the persons junior (mentioned in the said select panel ahead of the petitioner) to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector. He, however, submitted that several persons placed below the petitioner in the said panel were promoted subsequently. Referring to the reply filed by the Government, counsel submitted that non-promotion of the petitioner was only on account of the decision of this Court in case of Jayanta Chakraborty and others v. State of Tripura and others reported in (2015) 1 TLR 846 which was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court. Counsel vehemently contended that this deprived the petitioner of a valuable right of promotion. Since the petitioner was found suitable for promotion and, therefore, placed in the panel, the petitioner had every right to claim such promotion in his turn. He could not be promoted merely because till his retirement the issues arising out of the decision of this Court in case of Jayanta Chakraborty (supra) were not clear.

5. Basing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Major General H.M. Singh , VSM v. Union of India and another reported in (2014) 3 SCC 670 counsel submitted that the petitioner must be granted retrospective promotion with all consequential benefits. He drew my attention to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Union of India and others v. N.C. Murali and others reported in (2017) 13 SCC 575 to contend that unless the service rules prohibit, retrospective promotion can always be granted.

6. On the other hand, the case of the department is that no person whose name appeared below that of the petitioner in the select panel was promoted prior to the retirement of the petitioner. When the petitioner was in active service, he could not be granted promotion on account of the issues arising out of a decision in case of Jayanta Chakraborty (supra). The department had taken a conscious decision to put all such promotions in all departments on hold till clarity is achieved in the appeal filed before the Supreme Court.

7. The record would show that the department had operated the select panel by granting promotion up to the candidate placed at Sl. No.27. This was done on 31.03.2015. For some time to come, this was a last promotion granted by the department from the said panel. Shortly thereafter a Full Bench of this High Court delivered its judgment in Jayanta Chakraborty (supra) on 09.04.2015 and struck down certain rules framed by the State of Tripura in relation to reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Some of the decisions of the Government were found to be opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of