Employees have no vested right to promotion merely upon the occurrence of quota vacancies.

The applicant, a Senior Accountant who entered service in 1985 and was promoted in 1991, claimed consideration for promotion as Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) under the 10% quota prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for eligible Senior Accountants having ten years’ service and having crossed 53 years of age.

He also sought ad hoc appointment as AAO pursuant to the departmental Office Memorandum dated 29/30 December 2016, asserting that vacancies existed in the AAO cadre.

The respondents contended that the Department of Personnel and Training had consciously declined to retain the 10% promotional quota and that the applicant had no vested right to promotion merely because vacancies existed.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant retired on 31 May 2020.

The Tribunal also considered the decision of the Principal Bench in All India Civil Accounts Employees Association v. Union of India, O.A. No. 2532/2021, decided on 18 December 2024, involving the same issue.

Whether the respondents were legally required to convene a DPC and consider the applicant for promotion as AAO against the 10% quota under the existing Recruitment Rules, notwithstanding the proposed revision of those Rules and the DoP&T’s decision not to retain the quota.

Whether the applicant was entitled to ad hoc appointment as AAO against the claimed vacancy.

Whether mere availability of vacancies and eligibility under the existing Recruitment Rules conferred a vested or enforceable right to promotion.

The Tribunal applied the Recruitment Rules governing promotion to the post of Junior Accounts Officer, subsequently redesignated as AAO, under which 90% of posts were to be filled from candidates who had passed the departmental examination and 10% from eligible Senior Accountants on selection-cum-seniority basis.

It applied the settled principle that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable procedure, but no vested right to promotion merely because a vacancy exists.

Relying on Dr. K. Ramulu v. Dr. S. Surya Prakash Rao, (1997) 3 SCC 59, and Pradeep Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi, the Tribunal held that a conscious policy decision to revise the Recruitment Rules and discontinue a quota, when supported by reasons, could prevent preparation of a promotional panel under the former Rules.

Union of India v. V. Ramakrishnan, (2005) 8 SCC 394, was considered for the principle that draft or proposed rules cannot ordinarily govern appointments, although the Tribunal distinguished the applicant’s reliance on that decision by finding that the respondents had taken a conscious decision to stop promotions under the 10% category.

The Tribunal also relied on Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi, which recognised a right to consideration but not an absolute right to promotion or retrospective promotional benefits absent assumption of duties.

For ad hoc appointments, it applied the DoP&T’s Office Memorandum dated 23 July 2001, under which ad hoc promotion is permissible only in rare cases of work exigency and administrative necessity.

The Tribunal found that although the earlier Recruitment Rules formally contained a 10% quota, the DoP&T had, on 8 May 2015, consciously decided not to retain that quota because comparable organised Accounts Services did not provide for such a channel of promotion.

In light of Dr. K. Ramulu, the applicant could not insist on preparation of a panel under the old Rules merely because vacancies had accrued or because he satisfied the eligibility conditions.

The respondents’ continuation of promotions under the examination-based quota did not create a corresponding enforceable right in favour of Senior Accountants under the discontinued 10% quota, particularly when the policy decision was supported by stated reasons.

The claim for ad hoc appointment also failed because ad hoc appointment was an exceptional administrative measure, and the relevant vacancy had already been allocated to a regular AAO, Shri C.K. Dasan; the fact that he had not immediately joined did not establish an entitlement in the applicant’s favour.

The Tribunal further noted that promotion could not be granted retrospectively after retirement without an enabling legal basis or actual assumption of duties in the promotional post.

It held that the applicant had no vested right to promotion under the 10% quota merely on the basis of eligibility or available vacancies, and that the respondents’ decision not to operate that quota pending revision of the Recruitment Rules was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.

The claim for ad hoc appointment was likewise rejected as the appointment was not administratively necessary and the post had been filled through regular posting.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications were closed.