Employees have no vested right to promotion under superseded service rules.

The petitioner’s name was included in the 2022–2023 panel for promotion to Assistant Registrar, but he was not promoted because no vacancy was available; the panel later lapsed.

Before consideration for the 2024–2025 panel, the service rules were amended on 31 July 2024 to require a postgraduate qualification.

As the petitioner did not hold that qualification, the University declined to consider him for promotion.

He challenged the University’s letter dated 21 October 2024 and sought consideration for promotion, arguing that his inclusion in the earlier panel gave him a vested right under the previous rules.

Whether the petitioner could claim consideration for promotion under the rules in force when the earlier vacancy or 2022–2023 panel arose, despite the subsequent amendment of the service rules.

Whether the petitioner was eligible for consideration for the 2024–2025 panel when he did not possess the postgraduate qualification required by the amended rules.

Relying on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, (2023) 3 SCC 773, the Court applied the principles that vacancies need not invariably be filled under the rules in force when they arose; an employee’s right is to be considered under the rules in force on the date consideration takes place; and inclusion in an earlier panel or the existence of an earlier vacancy does not, by itself, create a vested right to promotion under repealed rules.

The State or appointing authority may decide not to fill earlier vacancies under the former rules, subject to the requirement that its policy decision be fair, reasonable, and consistent with Article 14.

The Court found that the petitioner’s 2022–2023 panel had lapsed without promotion because there was no vacancy, and that his relevant consideration was for the 2024–2025 panel.

By then, the amended rules requiring a postgraduate qualification were in force.

Since the petitioner admittedly lacked that qualification on the crucial date, the University was entitled to assess his eligibility under the amended rules; his earlier panel inclusion did not preserve a right to promotion under the former rules.

The Court accordingly found no infirmity in the impugned order.

It dismissed the writ petition, found no infirmity in the University’s order, and made no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.