Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
2025 INSC 620
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. _______ OF 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.30700 of 2024)
P. SAKTHI
…APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE GOVERNMENT OF
TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, a Police Constable in the service of the
State of Tamil Nadu is aggrieved with the denial of
consideration for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of
Police. The appellant who was initially appointed on
01.03.2002, was eligible for consideration in the year 2019
when a notification was issued for considering eligible
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.05.02
17:04:27 IST
Reason:
constables for in service promotion in the 20%
Page 1 of 4
CA @ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024
departmental quota. The appellant applied for the same
but by Annexure P/8 dated 13.04.2019, he was denied
consideration since, according to the Superintendent of
Police, he was disentitled as per the rules for reason of a
punishment of postponement of next increment for one
year without cumulative effect, imposed on 09.05.2005.
3. True, the recruitment rules provided for disentitling
an in-service candidate, if they did not have a clean record
of service without any punishment other than minor
punishment of black mark, reprimand and/or censure.
However, the appellant’s punishment was interfered with
and set aside by Annexure P/4 as early as 27.11.2009. The
criminal case lodged against him on the similar set of facts
had also ended in his acquittal.
4. 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, some 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. The departmental
Page 2 of 4
CA @ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024
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. The
writ petition was also filed in the year 2019. In the above
circumstances we are of the opinion that the appellant must
be considered for promotion, dehors any disentitlement
due to his having become overaged. 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.
Page 3 of 4
CA @ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024
5. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 02, 2025
Page 4 of 4
CA @ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024
2025 INSC 620
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. _______ OF 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.30700 of 2024)
P. SAKTHI
…APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE GOVERNMENT OF
TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, a Police Constable in the service of the
State of Tamil Nadu is aggrieved with the denial of
consideration for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of
Police. The appellant who was initially appointed on
01.03.2002, was eligible for consideration in the year 2019
when a notification was issued for considering eligible
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.05.02
17:04:27 IST
Reason:
constables for in service promotion in the 20%
Page 1 of 4
CA @ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024
departmental quota. The appellant applied for the same
but by Annexure P/8 dated 13.04.2019, he was denied
consideration since, according to the Superintendent of
Police, he was disentitled as per the rules for reason of a
punishment of postponement of next increment for one
year without cumulative effect, imposed on 09.05.2005.
3. True, the recruitment rules provided for disentitling
an in-service candidate, if they did not have a clean record
of service without any punishment other than minor
punishment of black mark, reprimand and/or censure.
However, the appellant’s punishment was interfered with
and set aside by Annexure P/4 as early as 27.11.2009. The
criminal case lodged against him on the similar set of facts
had also ended in his acquittal.
4. 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, some 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. The departmental
Page 2 of 4
CA @ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024
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. The
writ petition was also filed in the year 2019. In the above
circumstances we are of the opinion that the appellant must
be considered for promotion, dehors any disentitlement
due to his having become overaged. 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.
Page 3 of 4
CA @ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024
5. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 02, 2025
Page 4 of 4
CA @ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024