Length of service, qualifications, or disability confer no vested right to promotion absent eligibility under Recruitment Rules.

The applicant, Dara Singh, was appointed as a Group ‘D’ Peon/Multi-Tasking Staff in the Records Office, Rajputana Rifles, Delhi Cantt., against a vacancy reserved for persons with disabilities.

He sought consideration for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), relying on his service record, educational qualifications, alleged representations made in 2005, 2016, 2020 and 2026, and the promotion of certain allegedly junior employees.

The applicant also alleged that the respondents had failed to maintain the requisite promotion roster/register and relied on RTI correspondence.

The respondents’ RTI reply dated 10 April 2026 stated that no representations relating to promotion for 2016 and 2020 were available in the official record.

The respondents opposed the application, contending that the applicant had no vested right to promotion and that promotion was governed by the applicable Recruitment Rules and eligibility requirements.

Whether the applicant acquired an enforceable or vested right to promotion to the post of LDC merely on the basis of length of service, educational qualification, disability status, or alleged representations.

Whether the alleged promotion of junior employees and non-maintenance of the promotion roster entitled the applicant to promotion or retrospective consideration from 2005.

Whether the applicant’s claim, based on vacancies and promotional opportunities arising over a prolonged period, was barred as stale and incapable of revival through repeated representations.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an employee has no vested or indefeasible right to promotion merely by virtue of seniority, length of service, or educational qualification; promotion is governed by the applicable Recruitment Rules and prescribed eligibility conditions.

Under the policy relied upon by the applicant, 90% of LDC posts were to be filled by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion from Group ‘D’, subject to consideration of eligible and senior candidates by the competent authority.

Reservation or disability status under the provisions relating to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities does not dispense with the substantive eligibility requirements for promotion.

Alleged irregularity in maintaining a promotion roster does not, by itself, confer a substantive right to promotion; roster-related questions must be examined with reference to the Recruitment Rules, cadre structure, nature of the post, applicable reservation instructions, and vacancies in the relevant years.

A stale claim cannot be revived by repeated representations, which do not extend limitation or create a fresh cause of action.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established that he was eligible for promotion against any particular vacancy or that his claim had been unlawfully superseded by a junior employee.

The 2005 communication itself indicated that promotion was limited to the prescribed 10% quota and was subject to eligibility, seniority, and consideration by the competent authority.

The alleged representations from 2016 and 2020 were not supported by the official record, while the 2026 representations could not retrospectively create a right to promotion.

Similarly, the alleged promotion of juniors did not automatically establish discrimination or entitlement without proof that those promotions violated the Recruitment Rules and that the applicant was eligible for the relevant vacancies.

The roster allegation and RTI correspondence likewise did not constitute proof of an enforceable promotional right.

Since the claim substantially concerned promotional opportunities dating back to 2005, it was also treated as stale and incapable of revival through repeated representations.

The Original Application was dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

There was no order as to costs.