Eligibility or participation in a promotion selection creates no vested right to promotion.

The applicants, employees of Northern Railway, participated in the promotion process for the post of Technician-III pursuant to Notification No. 25/2025 dated 11 August 2025.

Their names appeared in the list of candidates qualified for consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), published on 30 June 2026.

However, they were not included in the provisional promotion panel of 34 candidates declared on 18 August 2026.

The applicants contended that their exclusion was illegal because they were neither issued show-cause notices nor afforded an opportunity of hearing.

They also relied on the existence of 11 vacancies in the cadre and sought relief against their exclusion.

The respondents argued that eligibility or participation in the selection process did not create an indefeasible right to promotion and that the applicants had not challenged the selection process or the DPC’s assessment.

Whether inclusion in the list of candidates eligible for consideration by the DPC or participation in the promotion process created an enforceable or indefeasible right in favour of the applicants to be included in the provisional promotion panel.

Whether the applicants’ exclusion from the provisional panel was legally unsustainable for want of a show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing.

Whether the existence of 11 vacancies entitled the applicants to a direction requiring the respondents to fill all such vacancies or promote the applicants against them.

The Tribunal applied the settled service-law principle that mere eligibility, participation in a selection process, or inclusion in a list of candidates eligible for consideration does not confer a vested or indefeasible right to promotion; it confers only a right to fair consideration in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure.

The Tribunal further held that the mere existence of vacancies does not create an enforceable right in an employee to seek promotion against every vacancy, nor does it require the employer to fill all vacancies irrespective of the availability of suitable candidates and the governing recruitment or promotion rules.

The applicants’ names in the list of candidates eligible for DPC consideration established, at most, their entitlement to be considered, not their entitlement to selection or promotion.

Since the competent authority/DPC ultimately did not include them in the provisional panel, and the applicants did not allege or establish any defect in the selection process, the Tribunal found no demonstrated illegality in their exclusion.

Their reliance on the 11 vacant posts was also insufficient because vacancies alone do not confer a right to promotion.

In the absence of a challenge to the applicable procedure, the DPC’s assessment, or any established procedural illegality, the Tribunal declined to interfere.

The existence of vacancies did not entitle them to promotion or require the respondents to fill all vacant posts.

Finding no illegality in the applicants’ exclusion from the provisional panel and no sufficient ground for judicial interference, the Tribunal dismissed OA No. 3383/2026.

No order as to costs.