Preparedness To Fill Vacancy Is Not A Commitment: Delhi High Court Dismisses Bank Officer’s Claim For Automatic Promotion

The Delhi High Court has held that placement in a promotion reserve list does not confer an automatic right to appointment, even if vacancies arise during its validity period.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by a former Deputy General Manager against the Bank of Baroda, the Court ruled that administrative discretion allows an employer to leave vacancies unfilled unless governing rules mandate otherwise.

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held, "A Reserve List serves an evident administrative purpose; it enables the Bank to draw upon an already assessed pool of officers if an additional vacancy is required to be filled. But preparedness to fill a vacancy is not the same thing as a commitment that every vacancy which arises must be filled."

Advocate Deepak K Vijay appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Praveena Gautam appeared for the Respondent/Bank

Brief Facts

The Petitioner was placed first in a Reserve List prepared in May 2016 for promotion from Deputy General Manager, TEG/S-VI, to General Manager, TEG/S-VII. During the currency of that list, vacancies arose in the cadre of General Manager. The Petitioner's case was that, being first in the Reserve List, he ought to have been promoted against the first of these vacancies with effect from 1st December, 2016.

Therefore, the petition was filed seeking promotion to the post of General Manager with effect from 1st December, 2016, together with consequential benefits.

The main issue for consideration was whether the mere existence of such vacancies, by itself, entitled the Petitioner to promotion.

Submissions by the Parties

It was contended by the Petitioner that the Reserve List was prepared precisely to take care of additional vacancies arising during the year. Once such vacancies actually arose before its expiry, there was no justification for the Bank to leave them unfilled. He also pointed out that, in previous years, officers from Reserve Lists had been promoted when additional vacancies arose, and relies upon this past practice as givingrise to a legitimate expectation of similar treatment in his case.

Although the Bank did not dispute that and said that on earlier occasions, candidates from the Reserve List were promoted, it disputed that placement in the Reserve List gave the Petitioner any right to promotion. It pointed out that none of the three officers in that list was promoted. 

Observations/Findings of the Court

The Court observed that the policy contemplated a vacancy; it also contemplated a list of eligible officers. But it did not make promotion from that list automatic.

"Clause 11.8, in fact, proceeds on the express premise that a vacancy may remain unfilled notwithstanding its availability. Clause 11.10 likewise uses the expression “may release”. The Policy, therefore, leaves a measure of administrative discretion with the Bank", the Court added.

The Court also observed that unlike a case where the governing rules are silent, Clause 11.8 expressly recognises the Bank’s authority to keep vacancies unfilled. The Petitioner’s position in the Reserve List, therefore, did not confer upon him an indefeasible or vested right to promotion merely because vacancies arose during its currency. 

The Court held that the Petitioner cannot claim a right to promotion merely on the ground that vacancies arose during the currency of the Reserve List. 

"His position as the first candidate in the Reserve List gave him precedence if the list was operated, but did not oblige the Bank to operate it", the Court concluded.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Ravi Kant Thakral v. Bank of Baroda [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC: 7779]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Deepak K. Vijay and Neeru Sharma

Respondent: Advocates Praveena Gautam, Pawan Shukla, Tissy A. Thomas and Rohan Bansla

Click here to read/download the Judgment