A promotion panel confers no enforceable right where the relevant vacancy was eliminated under a pre-existing scheme.

The petitioner, enrolled in the Corps of Signals in 1987, was promoted to Naib Subedar on 1 January 2002 and Subedar on 1 February 2010.

He was considered and empanelled at Serial No. 1 by the DPC held on 1–2 November 2016 for promotion to Subedar Major against vacancies expected during 1 January–31 December 2017; the result was published on 4 December 2016.

The petitioner claimed that the first vacancy arose on 1 January 2017 and that, as the senior-most empanelled candidate, he ought to have been promoted against it. He retired as Subedar on 31 January 2017 without such promotion.

The respondents contended that, under the 11th Army Plan notified on 1 October 2014, posts in the Corps of Signals were being reduced in phases, including two Subedar Major vacancies in the JE (Systems) cadre during 2017; consequently, no vacancy was available when the petitioner was in service.

The Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s OA No. 484/2018 on 4 September 2025, holding that the empanelment was subject to seniority and availability of vacancies and that the reduction scheme pre-dated the DPC. The petitioner challenged that decision under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner acquired an enforceable right to promotion to Subedar Major merely because he was empanelled by the 2016 DPC as the senior-most candidate.

Whether the respondents unlawfully changed the applicable promotional conditions or reduced the vacancies after commencement of the promotional process, thereby violating the principle that the “rules of the game” cannot be changed during the selection process.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to notional promotion, arrears of pay and allowances, and consequential pensionary benefits from 1 January 2017.

The Court exercised limited judicial review under Article 226 over the AFT’s reasoned order and declined interference absent illegality or material error.

It applied the principle that empanelment or selection does not by itself confer an absolute right to promotion where promotion is expressly subject to availability of vacancies; this qualification was contained in the DPC result itself.

The Court also recognised the principle that the rules of a promotional process ordinarily cannot be changed after the process has commenced, but held that the principle was inapplicable where the vacancy-reduction policy had been approved and notified before the DPC.

It considered Maj Gen H.M. Singh v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1128, for the proposition that a person found fit for promotion may acquire a right to promotion against an existing vacancy, while clarifying that such right remains subject to the availability of a vacancy.

The Court also referred to the 11th Army Plan dated 1 October 2014, under which JCO posts were to be reduced in phases between 2015 and 2018, including two Subedar Major JE (Systems) posts in the relevant period.

The Court held that the petitioner’s empanelment was only an approval for promotion subject to seniority-cum-merit and availability of vacancies, as expressly recorded in the DPC result.

The 11th Army Plan, including the phased reduction of Subedar Major posts and the specific reduction of two JE (Systems) vacancies during 2017, had been notified on 1 October 2014—well before the November 2016 DPC.

Therefore, the reduction did not amount to a post-DPC alteration of the rules or a change in the conditions of selection.

The first two vacancies arising in 2017 were treated as having been eliminated under the pre-existing reduction scheme, and the first actual promotion in 2017 occurred only against a vacancy arising on 1 April 2017, by which time the petitioner had retired.

The Court further rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the treatment of vacancies in 2016 because that contention had not been raised before the AFT and was unsupported by complete documentary evidence.

Accordingly, no existing vacancy was available to which the petitioner could claim a legal right of promotion.

Finding no illegality, arbitrariness, mala fide action, or jurisdictional error in the AFT’s order, the Court dismissed the writ petition and declined the prayers for notional promotion to Subedar Major, consequential monetary benefits, and revised pensionary benefits.

Pending applications were also disposed of.