An employee has only a right to consideration for promotion, not promotion itself.

The applicant, appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in 1988 in the erstwhile MCD, claimed that he was denied promotion to Upper Division Clerk (UDC) from 25.07.2006, despite allegedly being senior to employees promoted on that date.

He was ultimately promoted as UDC by Office Order dated 29.06.2016, with effect from 14.03.2016, after receipt of the requisite Currency of Punishment Report.

The applicant sought retrospective promotion from 25.07.2006, consequential monetary and non-monetary benefits, NFSG from 18.02.2013, and promotion as Head Clerk/Assistant Section Officer from 29.12.2015.

The respondents contended that the applicant had been considered by successive DPCs; that no junior had been promoted over him in 2006; that he was not found fit in 2007 because his ACRs were unavailable and he had not passed the typing test; and that his later recommendations were subject to receipt of the Currency of Punishment Report.

The applicant relied on the decision in Ashok Kumar Gupta v. NDMC & Ors., O.A. No. 200/2018, decided on 09.01.2025, where retrospective promotion and consequential benefits had been granted to another employee.

Whether the applicant was entitled to retrospective promotion from LDC to UDC with effect from 25.07.2006, on the ground that persons allegedly junior to him had been promoted from that date

Whether the applicant was entitled to NFSG from 18.02.2013 on the basis of retrospective promotion as UDC

Whether the applicant was entitled to promotion as Head Clerk/Assistant Section Officer from 29.12.2015, with consequential benefits

Whether the DPC recommendations and the respondents’ decision to defer promotion pending the Currency of Punishment Report were arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or contrary to the applicable service rules

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the application was instituted.

It relied on the principle stated in P. Sakthi v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Others, 2025 INSC 620, that a government servant has no indefeasible right to promotion but has a right to be considered for promotion unless disqualified.

Relying on Union of India v. K. Rajaiah, (2005) 10 SCC 15, and Union of India v. S. K. Goel, (2007) 14 SCC 641, the Tribunal held that DPCs possess discretion to devise a fair method for assessing suitability and that courts or tribunals should not interfere with DPC decisions absent arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides, or violation of statutory rules.

The applicable service conditions also required five years of regular service in the UDC grade for NFSG and promotion to Head Clerk.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s case had been considered at different stages by the DPCs and that his non-promotion was attributable to objective service-related reasons.

The 2006 DPC did not promote him because promotion in the unreserved category extended only up to seniority number 1451, whereas his seniority number was 1569.

In 2007, he was not found fit because the relevant ACRs were unavailable and he had not passed the typing test.

Although the 2011 and 2016 DPCs found him fit or recommended him for promotion, the recommendations were subject to the Currency of Punishment Report; he was promoted after the report was received, with effect from 14.03.2016.

Since the Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination, arbitrariness, mala fides, or breach of the governing rules, it declined to substitute its assessment for that of the DPC.

Consequently, the applicant lacked the five years of regular UDC service necessary for NFSG or promotion to Head Clerk.

The Tribunal did not extend the benefit of Ashok Kumar Gupta, treating the applicant’s case as factually and procedurally governed by the DPC record before it.

It upheld the respondents’ decision that the applicant’s case had been duly considered and that promotion was granted only after the necessary conditions, including receipt of the Currency of Punishment Report, were fulfilled.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.