Fair Consideration for Promotion Satisfies Article 16 Mandate Regardless of Ultimate Selection Outcome

The applicants, working as Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANM) since 2008, sought promotion to the post of Lady Health Visitor (LHV).

They claimed that as senior-most eligible candidates, they were entitled to promotion against vacancies anticipated in late 2025.

A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met in August and October 2025 but did not recommend the applicants.

The respondents contended that the applicants were not the senior-most (placing 7th in the seniority list) and that the DPC, after reviewing APARs, vigilance clearances, and the reservation roster, recommended three other candidates.

The respondents further highlighted pending litigation in the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 7819/2021) regarding the status and reversion of senior officials, which influenced the promotional exercise.

1. Whether the applicants have a vested legal right to be promoted to the post of Lady Health Visitor (LHV) based on eligibility and length of service.

2. Whether the decision-making process of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was vitiated by arbitrariness or procedural illegality warranting judicial interference.

3. Whether the respondents' failure to promote the applicants violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Tribunal applied the principle from Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, which holds that inclusion in a select list doesn't confer an indefeasible right to appointment.

It relied on Union Public Service Commission v. Hiranyalal Dev and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, establishing that courts should not sit as appellate authorities over expert bodies like the DPC unless there is proof of mala fides or patent illegality.

The Tribunal further applied Union of India v. A.K. Narula, restricting judicial review to the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision.

It cited Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, which clarifies that Article 16 guarantees only fair consideration for promotion, not promotion itself.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were duly considered by the DPC along with other eligible candidates, thereby satisfying the requirement of "fair consideration" under Article 16.

It noted that the applicants failed to prove they were the senior-most in the cadre, as the official seniority list placed them at Serial No. 7.

The Tribunal reasoned that the DPC had followed a structured process—evaluating APARs, vigilance status, and the reservation roster—and its recommendations could not be substituted by the Tribunal’s opinion in the absence of evidence showing mala fides or procedural breach.

Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the promotional exercise was legally complex due to interim orders and pending litigation in the Delhi High Court concerning the reversion of senior officials, justifying the respondents' reliance on the existing seniority position.

The Tribunal held that judicial review is limited to the decision-making process, which was found to be in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and statutory norms. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both Original Applications, affirming the validity of the impugned order dated 07/10.11.2025 and denying the requested relief.