Utt. HC: Conditional Liberty Must Override Statutory Embargo Under NDPS Act  ||  Utt. HC: While Exercising Inherent Jurisdiction, HC Does Not Function As Court of Appeal or Revision  ||  Pat. HC: Alcohol Consumption Cannot be Conclusively Proved Through Breath Analyzer Report  ||  Ker. HC: Emp. Messaging in Pvt. Whatsapp Group About Safety of Company Doesn’t Attract Disc. Proc.  ||  Ker. HC: Circular Issued to Enable Service of Notice, Summons Through E-Post in Trivandrum  ||  Gau. HC: Compensation Denied Over Death of Man Not Proved to be Bonafide Passenger  ||  Madras HC: Public Service is Being Performed by Lawyers, They Cannot be Denied Funds  ||  Gau. HC: Compensation Awarded to Wife of Deceased Driver Enhanced  ||  Bom. HC: Bar Council of Mah. & Goa Directed to Take Action Against Lawyer Who Appeared Without Band  ||  Delhi High Court: Bail Granted to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Liquor Policy Scam Case    

Saima Maqbool Vs. Omkar Raina and Ors. - (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (10 Aug 2018)

No employee has a right of promotion but has only right to be considered for promotion according to the Rules

MANU/JK/0618/2018

Service

Present order shall dispose of the application filed by applicant seeking review of the judgment. The writ petition was allowed by present Court holding the promotion granted in favour of the applicant-Respondent No. 2 as Reader by virtue of order dated 27th July, 2009, impugned in the writ petition, not justified in law. Present Court also quashed the promotion of the applicant as Reader granted by the High Court vide its order.

It is trite that, scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. In the absence of any statutory mandate to fill up a vacancy within a specified time, the Rules which are in vogue at the time the avenues of promotion are thrown open would govern such promotions.

It is well settled that, no employee has a right of promotion but has only right to be considered for promotion according to the Rules. Chances of promotion are not condition of service and, therefore, defeasible in accordance with law. Unless, there is statutory mandate to fill up a vacancy within a prescribed period, it is always left to the wisdom and discretion of the employer to fill up the vacancy as and when it deems fit and proper and the employee who has a right of consideration for promotion cannot dictate to his employer that available vacancy should be filled up immediately on occurrence.

It is in the backdrop of legal position, it was concluded that the promotion to the post of Reader in the year 2009, when the applicant was promoted was governed by the Order No. 579 dated 24th October, 2008 issued by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in exercise of powers conferred upon him in terms of Section 6 of the High Court Staff (conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 and the vacancy was to be supplied by way of promotion only from amongst the Section Officers (Adm) having the qualification of graduation in law and in the absence of availability of such candidates, by way of selection from amongst the candidates from other equivalent cadres. The applicant was only a Head Assistant and, therefore, was not holding the post equivalent to Section Officer. Applicant was not eligible to be promoted as Reader. Application dismissed.

Tags : POST   PROMOTION   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved