Authorities cannot stall an ongoing promotion process to make ineligible employees eligible.

The dispute arose from the proposed promotion of eligible Group ‘B’ officers to the posts of Deputy Director/Chief Agriculture Officer in the Uttarakhand Agriculture Department.

Pursuant to the Personnel Department’s Government Order dated 31 August 2020 directing departments to complete pending promotion exercises, the Director of Agriculture proposed filling seven vacancies branch-wise under the Agriculture Service Grade ‘A’ Service Rules, 1992.

A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was constituted on 29 December 2020, with its meeting scheduled for 19 January 2021.

On 31 December 2020, certain officers of the Development Branch represented to the Agriculture Minister seeking introduction of a “Single Window System” for Group ‘B’ posts and suspension of the ongoing promotion exercise.

The Minister directed that the promotion process be kept in abeyance pending amendment of the service rules.

The scheduled DPC meeting was consequently postponed, and the amended rules were reportedly notified in December 2021.

Priyanka Singh and Vinod Kumar Sharma, claiming to be the senior-most eligible officers in their respective branches, challenged the suspension before the High Court.

The matter was transferred to the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal and registered as Claim Petition No. 67/NB/DB/2022.

The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petitions and directed that the promotion exercise initiated by 31 December 2020 be completed under the rules then in force, while permitting the amended rules to govern future promotions.

The State and private parties challenged the Tribunal’s judgment dated 6 March 2025 and the Tribunal’s order dated 18 March 2026 dismissing the review applications.

1. Whether the authorities were justified in suspending an ongoing promotion exercise in order to amend the service rules and bring otherwise ineligible officers within the zone of consideration.

2. Whether Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975 authorised the Agriculture Minister to interfere with individual promotion proceedings.

3. Whether the promotion exercise had to be completed under the Agriculture Service Grade ‘A’ Service Rules, 1992, which were in force when the exercise commenced, notwithstanding the subsequent amendment of the rules.

The Court applied the constitutional guarantee under Articles 14 and 16 that eligible employees possess a right to fair and non-arbitrary consideration for promotion, though not a vested right to promotion itself.

It relied on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, (2023) 3 SCC 773, which held that pre-amendment vacancies are not invariably governed by the old rules and that the Government may decide not to fill them, provided its policy is fair, reasonable and consistent with Article 14.

It further relied on Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1, for the principle that eligibility criteria cannot ordinarily be altered midway through a selection process unless authorised by the applicable rules or advertisement and, even then, the alteration must satisfy Article 14.

The Court also applied the principle in Abhay Kumar Patel v. State of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 20, and Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4302–4303 of 2021, that a person has no absolute right to appointment but does have a vested right to be considered under the rules applicable when the process commenced, unless a retrospective amendment validly provides otherwise.

Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975, concerning disposal of departmental business under the direction of the Minister-in-charge, was held not to authorise ministerial interference in individual promotion matters.

The Court distinguished the general principle in Raj Kumar from the present facts.

Although the Government may amend service rules or decide not to fill vacancies pursuant to a fair policy decision, the present promotion process had already commenced under the 1992 Rules, with vacancies identified and a DPC constituted.

The suspension was triggered by a representation from a limited group of officers and was followed by an amendment that made previously ineligible officers eligible for consideration.

The Court held that the Minister’s intervention was not a general policy decision based on public interest but an arbitrary interruption of an existing process designed to alter the eligibility structure and benefit particular employees.

Rule 3 of the Business Rules could regulate departmental disposal but could not justify political interference in individual promotions.

Applying the “rules of the game” principle and the requirements of Articles 14 and 16, the Court concluded that eligible senior officers could not be deprived of fair consideration by deliberately postponing the DPC until the rules were amended.

It held that the exercise initiated on or before 31 December 2020 must be completed under the rules then in force, namely the 1992 Rules, while the amended rules would govern future promotions.

The writ petitions filed by the State and the private individuals were dismissed, and no interference was made with the Tribunal’s judgment or its dismissal of the review applications.