Is promotion a vested right, or merely a right to be considered for promotion?
Coram: Justice S.M.Subramaniam · Justice N.Senthilkumar
Tamilnadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 — Schedule XI, Item 11, Part A — Promotion — Currency of punishment as bar — Tamilnadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 — Schedule XI Item 11 — Promotion — Currency of punishment bars panel inclusion — Held: Promotion is not a vested right; consideration for promotion is a right of the employee, to be made in accordance with service records. Mere inclusion in a panel is procedural and confers no right, which accrues only on actual grant of promotion. (¶7) Tamilnadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 — Schedule XI Item 11 — Retrospective effect — Pre-existing bar under Government Orders unaffected — Held further: Currency of punishment was a bar to promotion under Government Orders even prior to the Conditions of Service Act, 2016, and the challenge to Item 11 Part A of Schedule XI was not relevant since the punishment was imposed in 2005, before the panel year 2008-09 and before the Act itself. (¶5) Tamilnadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 — Schedule XI Item 11 — Panel exclusion — Modified minor punishment does not entitle retrospective inclusion — Held further: Non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the 2008-09 panel on the ground of currency of punishment was justified notwithstanding subsequent modification of the punishment to postponement of increment, and the Government's refusal to grant retrospective promotion warranted no interference. Writ petition dismissed. (¶6, 8)
Is promotion a vested right, or merely a right to be considered for promotion?
Promotion is not a vested right; only consideration for promotion in accordance with the service records of the officer is a right of the employee. Mere inclusion in a promotion panel is procedural and confers no right, which accrues only when actual promotion is granted.
Under the Tamilnadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, does currency of punishment bar inclusion in a promotion panel even where the bar predates the Act?
Yes. Currency of punishment was a bar to grant of promotion under Government Orders even before the Conditions of Service Act, 2016 came into force, and this pre-existing bar was later incorporated as Item 11 Part A of Schedule XI to the Act.
What did the Madras High Court finally decide on the challenge to exclusion from the 2008-09 Deputy Superintendent of Police promotion panel?
The Court found the petitioner was rightly excluded from the 2008-09 panel since he was suffering currency of punishment at the relevant time, that the subsequent modification of the punishment to a minor one did not entitle him to retrospective promotion, and dismissed the writ petition with no costs.
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
For Respondent(s): Dr.R.Gouri, Government Counsel Order (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the Government Order in G.O.(D) No.547 Home (Police-2) Department dated 22.05.2018, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by including his name in the panel of the year 2008- 09.
The petitioner was directly recruited as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1987. He was promoted as Inspector of Police in the year 1998 and Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 2010. He is due for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the panel for the year 2008-09, but was not considered. However, he was subsequently promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police in the year 2018 and retired from service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Vasudevan would submit that the petitioner has been awarded several medals and was a meritorious officer. Departmental disciplinary proceedings was initiated based on false allegations and a punishment of reduction in rank by one stage for a period of three years was imposed on him. On appeal, the appellate authority modified the punishment to that of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect, which is a minor punishment.
Relying on the minor punishment, learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate that the name of the petitioner ought to have been included in the panel of Inspectors of Police fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 2008-09.
The writ petition has been filed challenging Item (11) Part A of Schedule XI of Tamilnadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. As far as the above provision under the Act is concerned, even similar condition was available prior to the Conditions of Service Act. The Government issued directions to consider the officers for promotion by imposing terms and conditions. Currency of punishment even before the Conditions of Service Act was a bar for grant of promotion. Therefore, the challenge made regarding Item (11) Part A of Schedule XI of Tamilnadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 may not be relevant in the present case, since the punishment was imposed in the year 2005 and the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is in the panel for the year 2008-09.
On merits, the Government considered the claim of the petitioner and found that he was suffering currency of punishment and therefore ineligible for grant of relief ie., promotion on par with his juniors who were promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the panel for the year 2009-09.
The principles for grant of promotions are now settled. Promotion is not a vested right. Consideration for promotion is a right of employee. Consideration must be made in accordance with the Service Records of the individual officers. Consideration for inclusion is procedural and therefore mere inclusion in the panel would not confer any right. Right would accrue only if actual promotion is granted to an officer. In the present case, the name of the petitioner was not even considered for inclusion in the panel for the year 2008-09 on the ground that he suffered punishment and currency of punishment was in force. Therefore, the Government has taken a decision not to grant retrospective promotion to the petitioner based on the conditions stipulated in the Government Orders for grant of promotion. Such Government Orders are subsequently made as Conditions of Service Act and that being the factum, this Court does not find any merit to grant the relief as such sought for in the writ petition.
For the above reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 23-07-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KST To
The Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
The Director General of Police, Office of the Director of Police, Mylapore, Chennai -600 004
The Additional Director General of Police (L and O), Office of Director General of Police, Chennai - 600 004.
The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore.
The Secretary The Department of Law, By its Secretary, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
The Secretary to the Govt., Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Secretariat, Chennai. S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR J. KST AND WMP NO. 5132 OF 2019 23-07-2026
Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC when limitation is a mixed question?
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14807 OF 2024 · Supreme Court of India
Must stray dogs removed from schools and hospitals be released back to the same location?
2025 INSC 1357 · Supreme Court of India
Are the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 binding on a State Government issuing an aggregator licence?
2023 INSC 102 · Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeHeadnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy