Meeting minimum residency and APAR norms does not confer an enforceable right to promotion under a merit-based scheme.

The applicant, a Scientific Officer/G in the Department of Atomic Energy, was promoted to the SO/G grade with effect from 1 July 2014.

He claimed that he became eligible for promotion to Scientific Officer/H (SO/H) from 1 July 2019 upon completing five years’ residency in SO/G and possessing five “Outstanding” APAR gradings.

His colleagues, who had also been promoted to SO/G in 2014, were promoted to SO/H in 2022, whereas his name was not included.

He alleged arbitrariness, victimisation and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and sought retrospective promotion with consequential monetary benefits.

The respondents contended that promotion under the Department of Atomic Energy’s Merit Promotion Scheme was merit-based and not automatic upon completion of the minimum residency period or achievement of the prescribed APAR gradings.

For the 2019 and 2020 promotion cycles, the applicant did not satisfy the applicable APAR norms.

He became eligible for consideration in 2021, when his case was recommended by the Screening Committee, but the Senior Standing Selection Committee and the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet did not find him fit for promotion.

Whether the applicant acquired an enforceable right to promotion as SO/H with effect from 1 July 2019 merely by completing the prescribed residency period and possessing the requisite APAR gradings.

Whether the respondents acted illegally or arbitrarily in not promoting the applicant, despite considering similarly situated officers for promotion to SO/H.

Whether the Tribunal could direct retrospective promotion and consequential monetary benefits when the competent selection authorities had not found the applicant fit for promotion.

The Tribunal applied the Department of Atomic Energy’s Merit Promotion Scheme and the applicable promotion guidelines for SO/G to SO/H, under which the minimum residency period and prescribed APAR gradings are threshold requirements for consideration, but do not by themselves confer a right to promotion; the assessment must also consider skills, achievements, leadership, productivity, interpersonal relations, scientific and technical competence, and the potential to shoulder higher responsibilities.

The Tribunal relied on the principle that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that eligibility only creates a right to consideration.

It also referred to Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, for the principle that mere participation in a selection process or placement in a merit list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment.

The guidelines further contemplated exceptional advancement only where consistently outstanding performance was supported by recognised achievements, technological accomplishments or proven leadership.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s premise that five years’ residency and five “Outstanding” APARs automatically entitled him to SO/H promotion.

Under the applicable guidelines, the APAR requirements were minimum screening norms and had to be supplemented by an overall merit assessment.

The respondents’ records showed that the applicant did not meet the prescribed norms for the 2019 and 2020 cycles.

Although he entered the zone of consideration in 2021 and was recommended by the Screening Committee, the Senior Standing Selection Committee and the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet independently assessed him and did not find him fit for promotion.

The Tribunal held that such assessment fell within the specialised domain of the competent authorities and that the applicant had relied principally on APAR gradings without demonstrating the additional achievements or attributes required for promotion to SO/H.

Consequently, the alleged comparison with other officers did not establish discrimination or an enforceable entitlement to retrospective promotion.

Completion of the minimum residency period and satisfaction of the APAR criteria only entitled him to consideration, not promotion.

Since he was not found fit by the competent selection authorities, the claim for retrospective promotion, arrears and consequential benefits was rejected.

The OA was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also dismissed.