No Vested Right To Promotion From Date Vacancy Arose Merely On Eligibility; Right Is Only To Be Considered By DPC In Accordance With Law: Delhi High Court
The Court denied retrospective promotion, holding that it cannot presume suitability or place employee in promotional cadre from a date preceding DPC assessment.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the mere existence of a promotional vacancy, coupled with an employee's satisfaction of the prescribed eligibility conditions, does not by itself create a vested right to promotion from the date on which the vacancy arose, and that an employee's right under the applicable Recruitment Rules is only to be considered for promotion in accordance with law.
The Court held that since promotion to the post in question required consideration by a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), it could not presume the suitability of the employee or place her in the promotional cadre from a date preceding such assessment, and accordingly declined to grant retrospective promotion, seniority, or monetary benefits.
The judgment came in a writ petition filed by Manpreet Kaur, a Private Secretary with the Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women, challenging the University's refusal to consider her for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar under Recruitment Rules that had since been superseded. The Court partly allowed the petition, quashing the University's communications while declining to revive her claim to retrospective consideration under the earlier Rules.
A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, “…the existence of a promotional vacancy and satisfaction of the prescribed eligibility conditions do not, by themselves, create a vested right to promotion from the date on which the vacancy arose. The Petitioner’s right under the applicable Recruitment Rules was only to be considered for promotion in accordance with law. Promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar required consideration by a DPC. The Court cannot presume suitability or place the Petitioner in the promotional cadre from a date preceding such assessment”.
Advocate Padma Kumar S. appeared for the petitioner and Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner was promoted as a Private Secretary with effect from April 01, 2015. Recruitment Rules notified on January 13, 2017 fixed the promotional quota for Assistant Registrar between Private Secretaries and Section Officers at 1:3, subject to five years' regular service.
The petitioner completed this qualifying service on April 01, 2020. However, before any DPC was convened, revised Recruitment Rules were notified on June 02, 2021, merging both feeder cadres into a common pool and enhancing the qualifying service to eight years. The University declined to consider the petitioner under the 2017 Rules, informing her that the 1:3 ratio applied to only two promotional posts yielded a fractional entitlement of 0.5 post for Private Secretaries, rendering her ineligible.
The petitioner contended that the ratio ought to have been operated as a running roster over a cycle of four vacancies, relying on State of Punjab v. Dr R.N. Bhatnagar, All India Federation of Central Excise v. UOI, and Achal Bisht v. Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management.
She further argued that having completed the qualifying service while the 2017 Rules were in force, she had acquired a right to consideration and retrospective promotion under those Rules, relying on Rajesh Kumar Giri v. Union of India, and pleaded malice in law in the University's failure to convene a DPC in time.
The University argued that no roster mechanism had ever existed, that the Recruitment Rules were under revision before the petitioner completed five years' service, and that her eligibility was governed by the Rules in force on the date of consideration.
The Court accepted the petitioner's contention that the University's fractional interpretation of the 1:3 quota was unsustainable, holding that a source quota between feeder cadres must be operated through a running roster on successive vacancies, not by dividing sanctioned posts into fractions, as such an interpretation would render the promotional avenue for Private Secretaries illusory.
However, the Court held that eligibility and availability of a vacancy do not create an accrued right to promotion. Since no DPC had been convened or selection process initiated under the 2017 Rules before the 2021 Rules came into force, the petitioner acquired no vested right to be considered under the superseded Rules.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the communications dated December 15, 2021 and January 21, 2022, while clarifying that the 2017 Rules would not stand revived. It directed the University to convene a DPC within eight weeks to consider the petitioner and other eligible candidates under the 2021 Rules, with a decision to be taken within four weeks thereafter. Any promotion, if granted, would operate prospectively, without retrospective seniority or monetary benefits.
Cause Title: Manpreet Kaur v. Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women and Ors (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5886)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Padma Kumar S., Advocate.
Respondents: Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel, N.K. Singh, Aliza Alam and Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates.