Promotion is a constitutional right of government employees, and a lack of promotional avenues violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Aggrieved by the mandamus issued to come up with necessary amendments in the relevant rule and create some promotional avenues for the persons holding the post of Office Assistant / Record Clerk in the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, the State is on appeal.

2. Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would submit that there cannot be a positive direction, as issued by the writ court, compelling the State to provide for promotional avenues to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission.

3. The petitioners before the writ court / respondents herein sought for the mandamus on the ground that though they were appointed directly as Office Assistants upon formation of the Commission, their services had been regularised with effect from the date of their initial appointments during the years 2009 and 2010, after framing of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission Service Rules, 2017 made in G.O.(Ms.)No.27 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (AR-III) Department dated 23.02.2017. Since under the Service Rules, there were no avenues for promotion for the posts of Office Assistant and Record Clerk, the respondents were forced to seek a mandamus as stated above.

4. The writ court, after referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Ms.O.Z.Hussain Vs. Union of India reported in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 688 and State of Tripura Vs. K.K.Roy reported in (2004) 9 SCC 65, reached the conclusion that it is the constitutional obligation of the State as an employer to ensure that there are promotional avenues to the State government employees working in various cadres.

5. In State of Tripura Vs. K.K.Roy , the Hon'ble Supreme Court went to the extent of pointing out that in the absence of promotional avenues, there should at least be an Assured Career Promotion Scheme, which would serve as an impetus to the employees to perform better.

6. We are unable to countenance the submission of Mr.R.Neelakandan, on the scope of the power of this court to issue a mandamus as has been done by the learned single Judge. In Dr.Ms.O.Z.Hussain Vs. Union of India , the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that the promotion is a normal incidence of service and the obligation on the part of the employer, particularly the Government to provide for promotions or Assured Career Promotion Scheme to its employees stems out of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India .

7. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura Vs. K.K.Roy supra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 6 of the judgment observed as follows:-

“6. [Ed.: Para 6 corrected vide Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./4/2004 dated 15-1-2004]. It is not a case where there existed an avenue for promotion. It is also not a case where the State intended to make amendments in the promotional policy. The appellant being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution should have created promotional avenues for the respondent having regard to its constitutional obligations adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India . Despite its constitutional obligations, the State cannot take a stand that as the respondent herein accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment knowing fully well that there was no avenue for promotion, he cannot resile therefrom. It is not a case where the principles of estoppel or waiver should be applied having regard to the constitutional functions of the State. It is not disputed that the other States in India/Union of India having regard to the recommendations made in this behalf by the Pay Commission introd