An employer cannot arbitrarily revisit accepted initial eligibility to deny promotion after years of service.

APDCL advertised in 2011 for direct recruitment to Assistant Manager (HR), requiring an MBA/PGDM in Human Resource and specifying a two-year full-time postgraduate course with HR specialization.

The petitioner held an MBA in Finance and Marketing, a one-year PGDM in HR, and an LLB. APDCL found her eligible and appointed her in 2012; she was later confirmed and promoted, and completed the five years of service in the feeder post required for consideration as Assistant General Manager (HR).

When she sought promotion, APDCL instead directed her to undertake an HR course, citing an irregularity in her original appointment. Following an interim direction to reconsider her case, the Board maintained that decision in 2026.

The Court considered the eligibility terms in the 2011 recruitment advertisement, including the requirement for a two-year full-time postgraduate course with HR specialization and the recognition of a law degree as an additional qualification.

It also considered the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited Human Resource Service Rules, 2019, which provide for filling two-thirds of AGM (HR) vacancies by promotion from Deputy Managers (HR) with five years’ continuous service, and the remaining vacancies by direct recruitment.

The Court applied principles of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in reviewing the Board’s decision; it cited no statutory provision or judicial precedent as the basis for those principles.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s PGDM in HR was for one year, rather than the two years specified in the advertisement.

It nevertheless found the Board’s reliance on that qualification issue unreasonable: APDCL had assessed her eligibility before appointment, had not questioned her appointment during her service, and had subsequently confirmed and promoted her.

The petitioner also held an HR diploma and an LLB, had completed the required five years in the feeder post, and had served the organization for over 14 years.

The Court further noted that eight officers above her in the HR Department were engineering graduates, and that the Board’s decision did not account reasonably for the applicable promotion structure or the reported vacancies.

It allowed the petition, set aside APDCL’s communication dated 1 June 2022 and the subsequent reconsideration communication dated 2 February 2026, and directed that the petitioner be considered and given promotion to AGM (HR) within 45 days.