Surender Singh Dalal & ors v. Union of India & Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (08 Aug 2016)

Mere chance of promotion is not a fundamental right

Service

Right to be considered for promotion is a right which flows from applicable rule or a policy governing promotion matters

Petitioners worked as Sub-Inspectors under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). Amendment incorporated vide notification dated February 17, 2009 to the recruitment rules is challenged by Petitioners on ground that reducing 50% of posts, where appointment had to be by promotion, to 33% had resulted in acute stagnation.

It is settled law that a mere chance of promotion is not a fundamental right, but the right to be considered for promotion is a right which flows from the applicable rule or a policy governing the matter of promotion. Amended rule bifurcates the pre-existing 50% quota for appointment to the post of Assistant Commandant by promotion. 33% continues to be reserved for appointment by promotion from those who are eligible and meet the prescribed benchmark. 17% is reserved for appointment by promotion through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.

50% quota by promotion has been retained. It has been split up into two compartments. 33% continues to be in the original compartment of appointment by promotion. The hived off compartment of 17% continues to be promotion but through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.

The rationale for amendment is that young, laborious, hardworking and talented Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors should be given an incentive to move up the ladder and this would be in interest of the organization because it would instil a sense of competitiveness amongst Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors who would strive to achieve their best and the result would be the efficiency in the department.

Right to be appointed by promotion was restricted to 50% of the posts. Hitherto onward the right to be appointed by promotion is restricted to 33% with a sub- channel of promotion created through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. High Court dismissed the Petition and held that, Amendment to Rules are not violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution.

Relevant : CISF Assistant Commandant (Executive), Recruitment Rules 2009

Tags : PROMOTION ENTITLEMENT