Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
Employee Has No Right To Be Promoted But Has A Right To Be Considered For Promotions, Unless Disqualified: Supreme Court
|The appellant, a Police Constable in the service of the State of Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court challenging the denial of consideration for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police.
While allowing the appeal of a Police Constable seeking consideration for promotion, the Supreme Court has held that an employee has no right to be promoted but has a right to be considered when selections for promotions are carried out, unless disqualified.
The appellant, a Police Constable in the service of the State of Tamil Nadu approached the Apex Court challenging the denial of consideration for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran asserted, “The consideration will be made and if found eligible, he shall be promoted from 2019 and consequential benefits also shall be paid to him, since it was not his fault that the authority denied his consideration for promotion based on a punishment which had already been set aside. It is trite that the employee has no right to be promoted but has a right to be considered, when selections for promotions are carried out, unless disqualified; which right has been impinged, unjustly, in the above case.”
AOR Raghunatha Sethupathy B. represented the Appellant while Sr. A.A.G Amit Anand Tiwari represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant, who was initially appointed in 2002, was eligible for consideration in 2019 when a notification was issued for considering eligible constables for in-service promotion in the 20% departmental quota. The appellant applied for the same, but he was denied consideration because of a punishment of postponement of the next increment for one year without a cumulative effect imposed on May 9, 2005.
The appellant was proceeded against both departmentally and under the criminal law for allegedly having beaten up a colleague when they were posted in a check post. After duty, a dispute arose between them, and there was a brawl in which the other constable was injured. This led to a criminal case being lodged in which he was arrested but later acquitted.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the appellant’s punishment was interfered with and set aside as early as November 27, 2009. The criminal case lodged against him on a similar set of facts had also ended in his acquittal.
“The departmental proceedings though entered in the finding of guilt with resultant punishment imposed, the same was set aside in 2009 by the Government as is evidenced from Annexure P/4. In such circumstances, the appellant could not have been disentitled from a consideration in the year 2019”, it said.
The Bench came to the conclusion that the appellant must be considered for promotion, dehors any disentitlement due to his having become overaged. The Bench ordered that the consideration will be made and if found eligible, he shall be promoted from 2019, and consequential benefits also shall be paid to him. Noting that it was not his fault that the authority denied his consideration for promotion based on a punishment which had already been set aside, the Bench allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: P. Sakthi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 620)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Raghunatha Sethupathy B., AOR Mr. Manoj Kumar A.
Respondent: Sr. A.A.G. Amit Anand Tiwari, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Tanvi Anand, Saushria Havelia, Pranjal Mishra, Danish Saifi