When Process Of Promotion Has Not Been Finalized, A Candidate Does Not Have Any Right To Promotion: Jammu &Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
|The Court said the Central University of Jammu had sufficiently justified not completing the 2016 promotion process and initiating a fresh one under the 2022 Rules, and its actions could not be considered arbitrary or mala fide.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that no vested right accrues to a candidate from a promotion process that is not carried to its logical conclusion.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “It is a settled law that when the process of recruitment/promotion has not been finalized and culminated into a select list, a candidate does not have any right to appointment/promotion. The employer has a right to stop the process at any time before a candidate is appointed/promoted.”
The Court added, “The respondent-University has, therefore, adequately justified the non-conclusion of the departmental promotion process under the Rules of 2016 and the issuance of a fresh notification for initiating the process of departmental promotion in terms of Rules of 2022. The action of the respondent-University, in these circumstances, cannot be termed to be either arbitrary or mala fide as has been claimed by the petitioner.”
Advocate Raghu Mehta appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate D.C. Raina represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner, serving as Private Secretary since 2014, participated in a promotion process for the post of Assistant Registrar initiated in 2019 under the 2016 Cadre Recruitment Rules. Though a written test was conducted, the process was never concluded. In 2023 and 2024, the Respondent issued fresh notifications under the amended 2022 Rules. The Petitioner challenged the new notifications, contending that since the vacancy had arisen in 2019, the applicable rules must be those of 2016.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court held that participation in an unfinished process does not confer any legal right. The Court noted, “It is a settled law that when the process of recruitment/promotion has not been finalized and culminated into a select list, a candidate does not have any right to appointment/promotion. The employer has a right to stop the process at any time before a candidate is appointed/promoted.”
The Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh, wherein it was held that a candidate who appears in a selection process merely gains a legitimate expectation to be considered under prevailing rules, but not a right to be appointed.
The Court also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Deepak Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that a candidate must be considered under the rules that are in force at the time of consideration, and amendment of rules before finalization does not affect any accrued right.
The Court observed that the Respondent was justified in abandoning the 2019 process and initiating a fresh one. “The respondent-University has clearly explained in its reply affidavit that, due to Covid-19 pandemic… the process for departmental promotion pursuant to notification dated 12.07.2019 could not be taken to its logical conclusion…The respondent-University has, therefore, adequately justified the non-conclusion of the departmental promotion process under the Rules of 2016 and the issuance of a fresh notification… in accordance with the new Rules”, the Court added.
On whether the 2016 or 2022 Rules should apply, the Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, wherein a three-judge bench held that the Rangaiah principle that vacancies must be filled under rules existing at the time they arose is not a rule of universal application.
The Court further observed, “In view of the aforesaid position of law as declared by the Supreme Court… promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar is to be made in accordance with the Rules of 2022, which are in vogue at the time of consideration for promotion.”
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Petitioner had no vested right to seek promotion under the 2016 Rules since the process had not culminated, and further upheld the University’s authority to apply the 2022 Rules and initiate a fresh process, and found no arbitrariness or mala fides in doing so.
Cause Title: Sanjeev Gupta v. Central University of Jammu (WP (C) No. 3057/2024)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Raghu Mehta
Respondent: Senior Advocate D.C. Raina; Advocate Govind Raina
Click here to read/download Judgment