Can promotion per se be claimed as a vested right?
Promotion — Retrospective promotion — Vested right — Feeder category — Acquisition of qualification — Judicial review —
Promotion — Rules applicable to the post — No vested right —
Held: All promotions are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules applicable to the post, and promotion per se cannot be claimed as a vested right. A claim is considered only where a violation of the statutory rules is established. (¶7)
Promotion — Mere acquisition of qualification — No retrospective claim —
Held further: Mere acquisition of the qualification for a post is not a ground to claim retrospective promotion, particularly where the claimant did not hold the feeder category post at the relevant time. (¶8, 10)
Retrospective promotion — Infringement of a promotional right — When granted —
Held further: Retrospective promotion is granted only where a junior was promoted in violation of the rules or the name of a senior was overlooked; infringement of a promotional right must be established. Writ appeal allowed. (¶10, 12)
Can promotion per se be claimed as a vested right?
No. All promotions are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules applicable to the post, and promotion per se cannot be claimed as a vested right. A writ petition claiming promotion may be considered only if a violation of the statutory rules is established, or if juniors were promoted overlooking seniority, which is also to be construed as a violation of the rules. [¶7]
Is mere acquisition of the qualification for a post a ground to claim retrospective promotion?
No. Mere acquisition of qualification would not be a ground to claim retrospective promotion. The promotion procedures are contemplated under the Service Rules: a panel of eligible candidates is to be prepared, the requisite qualifications looked into, and promotions granted after publication of the approved panel. Where the post held was not the feeder category for the promotion post, the claimant was not eligible for that post at the relevant point of time. [¶7, ¶8]
Is retrospective promotion granted only where a junior was promoted in violation of the rules or a senior was overlooked?
Yes. Retrospective promotion may be considered by the authorities as well as by the Courts only in the event of grant of promotion to any of the juniors in violation of the rules or overlooking the name of the senior, since promotion is not a right. Infringement of a promotional right is to be established, and an order granting retrospective promotion merely because the employee possesses the qualification and the post is available runs counter to the principles governing the grant of promotions. [¶10]
What did the Court finally decide on the writ appeal against the writ order directing retrospective promotion?
The writ appeal was allowed and the writ order dated 12.03.2024 was set aside, with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition closed. The Court held that the appointment to the post of Instructor in 2015 was itself a concession extended by way of transfer of service, the post held earlier not being the feeder category, so no retrospective promotion from 2012 could be claimed. [¶11, ¶12]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“7. All promotions are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules applicable to the post. Promotion per se cannot be claimed as vested right. The writ petition claiming promotion may be considered only if violation of statutory rules are established or overlooking seniority, juniors were promoted which is also to be construed as violation of rules. However, High Court, in exercise of powers of judicial review, may not issue a direction to grant promotion with retrospective effect, unless the promotion rules are violated or violations of the rules, i.e., juniors were promoted overlooking the senior. The promotion procedures are contemplated under the Service Rules. A panel of eligible candidates are to be prepared. Requisite qualifications are to be looking into and after publication of approved panel, promotions are to be granted. Mere acquisition of qualification would not be a ground to claim retrospective promotion.”
“8. In the present case, the respondent, possessed the degree in the year 2000, but such acquisition alone will not be a ground to grant promotion. That apart, the promotion to the post of Instructor was not considered initially on account of want of service rules. However, the respondent states that he served as Instructor. In this context, the appellants would submit that as per the rules, the feeder category for the post of Instructor is not Museum Keeper. Therefore, the respondent, during the relevant point of time, was not eligible for the post of Instructor. Since the post of Museum Keeper was not a feeder category for promotion to the post of Instructor, the respondent, by way of concession was appointed by way of transfer of service to the post of Instructor vide proceedings dated 07.10.2015. He joined as Instructor on 09.10.2015.”
“10. Retrospective promotion may be considered by the authorities as well as by the Courts only in the event of grant of promotion to any of the juniors in violation of the rules or overlooking the name of the senior, since promotion is not a right. Retrospective promotion is to be granted only in such circumstances. Therefore, the very claim set out by the respondent for grant of retrospective promotion merely on the ground that he possess qualification is untenable. The relief, seeking retrospective promotion on the ground that an employee possess qualification and the post is available, cannot be considered by the Courts for grant of retrospective promotion. Infringement of promotional right is to be established and that being the principles to be followed, the order granting retrospective promotion by the writ Court is running counter to the principles governing the grant of promotions.”
“11. In the present case, the respondent retired from service on 31.05.2016 and all his retirement benefits were settled. He was promoted to the post of Instructor with effect from the year 2015. The order pre se would show that since the respondent was having 8 months of service, he was appointed as Instructor. Except the said reason, no other reason has been given. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the promotion granted to the post of Instructor itself is a concession extended. Therefore, now the respondent cannot claim retrospective promotion to the post of Instructor with effect from the year 2012.”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Tourism Sculpture and Religious Endowments Department along with the Commissioner, Arts and Culture and Government College for Architecture and Sculpture, preferred the present Writ appeal, challenging the writ order dated 12.03.2024.
The respondent was appointed as Museum Keeper on temporary basis on 23.12.1981 under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules in Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mamallapuram. The initial appointment of the respondent was not in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. Since the post of Museum Keeper is falling under TNPSC, after obtaining concurrence from the TNPSC, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.576, Tamil Development Culture and Religious Department, dated 27.11.1998, and the services of the respondent was regularised, relaxing the rule framed for the post of Museum Keeper retrospectively with effect from 13.12.1981.
On completion of Bachelor degree in Fine Arts & Sculpture in May 2000, a representation was submitted by the respondent to appoint him as Instructor in Sculpture. His request was rejected on the ground that there was no rules framed for the post of Instructor. The respondent filed W.P.No.7240 of 2006, in which, a direction was issued to consider his representation. The appellants herein rejected the claim of the respondent to appoint him as Instructor, by proceedings dated 30.12.2008. Challenging the said order, the respondent filed W.P.No.6369 of 2009.
The learned single Judge directed the authorities to consider the claim of the respondent. The State preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.1932/2010. The said writ order was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2010. Subsequently, Special/Adhoc Rules for the post of Senior lecturer/Lecturer were framed vide G.O.No.265 Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department dated 24.10.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.264,Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department dated 24.10.2013 respectively. Therefore, all promotions/ appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules in force.
The respondent filed a writ petition claiming retrospective promotion to the post of Instructor from the year 2012 on the ground that he was allowed to perform duties as Instructor from the year 2012. The Writ Court, directed the authorities to consider the case of the respondent in accordance with the recommendations of the Principal of the College dated 20.07.2011.
The question arises whether retrospective promotion can be granted based on the recommendation of the Principal of the College to the post of Instructor.
All promotions are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules applicable to the post. Promotion per se cannot be claimed as vested right. The writ petition claiming promotion may be considered only if violation of statutory rules are established or overlooking seniority, juniors were promoted which is also to be construed as violation of rules. However, High Court, in exercise of powers of judicial review, may not issue a direction to grant promotion with retrospective effect, unless the promotion rules are violated or violations of the rules, i.e., juniors were promoted overlooking the senior. The promotion procedures are contemplated under the Service Rules. A panel of eligible candidates are to be prepared. Requisite qualifications are to be looking into and after publication of approved panel, promotions are to be granted. Mere acquisition of qualification would not be a ground to claim retrospective promotion.
In the present case, the respondent, possessed the degree in the year 2000, but such acquisition alone will not be a ground to grant promotion. That apart, the promotion to the post of Instructor was not considered initially on account of want of service rules. However, the respondent states that he served as Instructor. In this context, the appellants would submit that as per the rules, the feeder category for the post of Instructor is not Museum Keeper. Therefore, the respondent, during the relevant point of time, was not eligible for the post of Instructor. Since the post of Museum Keeper was not a feeder category for promotion to the post of Instructor, the respondent, by way of concession was appointed by way of transfer of service to the post of Instructor vide proceedings dated 07.10.2015. He joined as Instructor on 09.10.2015.
The State would submit that the respondent was discharging his duties as Museum Keeper situated in a separate campus and the said post is purely a non-teaching category. Since the respondent had not worked as Instructor in 2012, appointment to the said post was not given from the year 2012. Even if an employee is qualified for a particular post, it would not raise a cause to claim retrospective promotion. In the present case, no other junior to the respondent was promoted to the post of Instructor. His case was considered for appointment by way of transfer of service in the year 2015, since he was not holding the feeder category post in the year 2012.
Retrospective promotion may be considered by the authorities as well as by the Courts only in the event of grant of promotion to any of the juniors in violation of the rules or overlooking the name of the senior, since promotion is not a right. Retrospective promotion is to be granted only in such circumstances. Therefore, the very claim set out by the respondent for grant of retrospective promotion merely on the ground that he possess qualification is untenable. The relief, seeking retrospective promotion on the ground that an employee possess qualification and the post is available, cannot be considered by the Courts for grant of retrospective promotion. Infringement of promotional right is to be established and that being the principles to be followed, the order granting retrospective promotion by the writ Court is running counter to the principles governing the grant of promotions.
In the present case, the respondent retired from service on 31.05.2016 and all his retirement benefits were settled. He was promoted to the post of Instructor with effect from the year 2015. The order pre se would show that since the respondent was having 8 months of service, he was appointed as Instructor. Except the said reason, no other reason has been given. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the promotion granted to the post of Instructor itself is a concession extended. Therefore, now the respondent cannot claim retrospective promotion to the post of Instructor with effect from the year 2012.
In view of the above reasons, the writ order dated 12.03.2024 is set aide. The Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 22-07-2026
Can a confession statement be used to frame charges against an accused in the absence of any other evidence?
CRL RC.2194/2023 · Madras High Court
Are judgments applying the clean slate theory under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to dues before CIRP a precedent on tax dues arising during CIRP?
WP.22505/2024 · Madras High Court
Are repeated unsubstantiated complaints and reckless allegations against a spouse and his family mental cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act?
CMA(MD).1160/2023 · Madras High Court
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide 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 freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High 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
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy