Mere availability of promotional vacancies does not confer a right to retrospective promotion.

The applicant was appointed as ASI (MT) Fitter Grade-I (Electrician) on 8 March 1990 and was placed at Serial No. 2 in the seniority list dated 29 March 1993. He was promoted as SI (MT/Tech.) with effect from 20 October 2006, but contended that his seniority had been adversely affected because of a censure imposed in 1990 and consequent deferment of his confirmation.

In O.A. No. 1036/2013, the Tribunal affirmed his seniority at Serial No. 2 and directed the respondents to prepare the relevant seniority lists and consider eligible candidates for promotion to Inspector (MT/Tech.).

Although three vacancies were allegedly available in 2013, the applicant was not considered for promotion at that time. Pursuant to the earlier Tribunal order, the respondents issued a tentative seniority list on 3 October 2016 and a final seniority list on 3 November 2016.

The applicant was thereafter promoted as Inspector/MT (Chargeman) with effect from 16 December 2016, on the basis of the DPC’s recommendation, communicated through notification dated 20 December 2016.

His representation seeking retrospective promotion from 2013 was rejected on 7 April 2017, leading to the present O.A.

Whether the applicant was entitled to have his promotion as Inspector/MT (Chargeman), granted with effect from 16 December 2016, antedated to 2013 merely because promotional vacancies were available in that year?

Whether the respondents’ order dated 7 April 2017 rejecting the applicant’s representation was liable to be quashed for being non-speaking or mechanical?

The Tribunal applied the principle that the mere existence of a promotional vacancy does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion from the date on which the vacancy arose.

It relied on the DoPT O.M. dated 10 April 1989, under which promotions ordinarily operate prospectively even when the vacancies relate to earlier years.

The Tribunal also considered the DoPT O.M. dated 28 January 2015 but held that it did not create any enforceable right to retrospective promotion, particularly since it was subsequent to the relevant period.

In State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha, Civil Appeal No. 2350 of 2025, and the authorities of R.S. Mittal v. Union of India, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230, and Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway, (2019) 12 SCC 798, the Supreme Court recognised that selected candidates should not ordinarily be ignored where vacancies exist without cogent reasons; however, inclusion in a select list or availability of vacancies does not create an absolute or vested right to appointment, and relief depends on the facts of each case.

The Tribunal further treated the directions in O.A. No. 1036/2013 as limited to revision of seniority and consideration for promotion, without any direction for retrospective promotion.

The Tribunal held that the earlier order in O.A. No. 1036/2013 only affirmed the applicant’s seniority and directed preparation of tentative and final seniority lists followed by consideration of eligible candidates; it did not direct promotion from 2013.

The respondents complied by revising the seniority position and convening the DPC, which recommended the applicant’s promotion in 2016. The promotion was therefore correctly made effective from 16 December 2016, the date of the DPC recommendation, in accordance with the DoPT’s prospective-effect rule.

The Tribunal also noted that the promotion process initiated in 2013 had been interrupted during the earlier litigation and that the respondents’ explanation that further proceedings were stayed remained unrebutted.

Consequently, the applicant failed to establish that the delay was solely attributable to unlawful departmental action.

The revised seniority list placed the applicant alongside his immediate senior, Kartar Singh, and both were promoted through the same notification dated 20 December 2016. Antedating only the applicant’s promotion would create disparity, disturb existing seniority and subsequent promotions, and generate further claims and litigation.

Since the applicant had no substantive right to retrospective promotion, the alleged defects in the rejection order dated 7 April 2017 did not justify interference.

His promotion as Inspector/MT (Chargeman) with effect from 16 December 2016 was upheld.

The challenge to the order dated 7 April 2017 was also rejected, and O.A. No. 1568/2017 was dismissed, with pending miscellaneous applications disposed of and no order as to costs.