### Creation of Promotional Avenues Is Mandatory to Avoid Stagnation, but Hierarchical Structure Is Employer's Sole Prerogative

The appellants, working as Lab Assistants, challenged a government decision dated 20.01.2025 which rejected their representation for the creation of a five-post promotional structure within their service cadre.

A Single Judge of the High Court quashed the rejection order, directing the Secretary of Higher Education to reconsider the creation of promotional avenues to prevent stagnation. However, the Single Judge noted that employees cannot specifically demand a five-post hierarchy.

The appellants moved an application for correction, noting the Single Judge mistakenly referred to them as "Lab Attendants" instead of "Lab Assistants," which was rejected on 18.04.2026.

1. Whether an employee has a legal right to demand a specific numerical structure (e.g., a five-post hierarchy) for promotional avenues within a service cadre.

2. Whether the misdescription of the appellants' designation as "Lab Attendant" instead of "Lab Assistant" in the lower court's order constitutes a corrigible typographical error.

The Court relied on the precedent established in Food Corporation of India and others v. Parashotam Das Bansal and others (2008 (5) SCC 100), which mandates that every service structure must provide promotional avenues to enhance efficiency and prevent employee stagnation.

Furthermore, the Court applied the administrative principle that the specific design and hierarchy of a promotional structure fall strictly within the "domain of the employer" and are not a matter of right for the employee.

The Division Bench concurred with the Single Judge's reliance on Food Corporation of India, affirming that while the State is obligated to provide promotional opportunities to avoid stagnation, the exact structure of such promotions is a policy matter for the executive.

The Court reasoned that the appellants' insistence on a specific "five-post" hierarchy lacked legal backing as courts cannot dictate administrative staffing structures.

Regarding the procedural grievance, the Bench found a clear typographical error in the Single Judge’s orders dated 07.04.2026 and 18.04.2026, where the appellants were misidentified as "Lab Attendants" despite being "Lab Assistants".

However, it allowed the appeal in part regarding the typographical error, directing that the appellants’ designation be read as "Lab Assistants". The Court ordered that a copy of this judgment be attached to any certified copy of the Single Judge's order dated 07.04.2026 issued henceforth.