No fundamental right to promotion; promotion effective from date granted, not vacancy or post creation.

The Applicant, Vinod Kumar N K, was appointed as Technician-III on May 29, 1985, and subsequently promoted to Technician Grade-II on October 27, 1992, Technician Grade-I on November 1, 2003, and Senior Technician on November 22, 2017.

As a Senior Technician, his next promotion avenue was to Junior Engineer through a selection process involving a written test.

The eligibility condition for this role required four years of experience as a Senior Technician, which the Applicant fulfilled by November 24, 2021.

A notification for the Junior Engineer selection was issued on April 28, 2022.

The Applicant took the examination on May 30, 2022, and the results were announced on July 18, 2022, declaring him selected.

However, as per Railway Board O.M. dated January 27, 2020 (Annexure R-5), a mandatory 78-day (13-week) training was required before promotion to Junior Engineer.

The Applicant was relieved for training on July 21, 2022, and commenced training on July 25, 2022.

He retired on July 31, 2022, and consequently could not complete the mandatory training, leading to his non-promotion to the Junior Engineer grade.

The Applicant challenged the communication dated July 25, 2022, which rejected his representation for promotion.

He argued that the respondents did not adhere to the Master Circular timelines for annual selections and training, leading to his missed promotion.

He also claimed discrimination, citing instances where others were given ad-hoc promotions or had training waived.

The respondents maintained that all instructions were scrupulously followed, and earlier cases cited by the applicant predated the mandatory 78-day training rule introduced in 2018.

Whether the respondents' rejection of the Applicant's request for promotion to Junior Engineer and ad-hoc promotion was illegal or arbitrary due to delays in conducting examinations and training, or non-adherence to the Master Circular?

Whether the non-completion of mandatory 78-days (13-weeks) training justified denying the Applicant promotion to the post of Junior Engineer?

Whether the Applicant was discriminated against by not being granted an ad-hoc promotion or a waiver of training, given alleged similar past instances?

Whether the Applicant is entitled to retrospective promotion as Junior Engineer after his retirement on July 31, 2022?

The court applied principles from the Master Circular (Annexure A-6) concerning the promotion of Non-Gazetted (Group-C) staff to "Selection" posts, emphasizing that its timelines are broad guidelines and small variations do not constitute illegality or arbitrariness without specific allegations of discrimination or mala fide intent.

It considered the mandatory 78-day (13-week) training requirement for Junior Engineers as per Railway Board's letter No.E(MPP)2019/3/44 (RBE No.10/2020) dated January 27, 2020 (Annexure R-5), noting its introduction in 2018.

The court also referred to the provisions of the Master Circular regarding ad-hoc promotions (Rule 21), highlighting that such promotions are exceptional, temporary (not beyond 3-4 months), and not a matter of right.

Crucially, the court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Government of West Bengal v. Amal Satpathi (2024 SC Online SC 3512) and Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das (2024 SCC Online SC 1768), which established that there is no fundamental right to promotion, only a right to be considered for promotion, and that retrospective promotion cannot be granted especially after retirement.

The court analyzed the Applicant's grievances by distinguishing between broad guidelines and mandatory requirements.

It found no convincing reason of discrimination or mala fide intent on the part of the respondents for delays in the selection process, categorizing variations from the Master Circular timelines as natural administrative contingencies rather than justiciable issues.

The court affirmed the mandatory nature of the 78-day training for Junior Engineers, citing RBE No.10/2020 (Annexure R-5), and concluded that not completing it justified non-promotion.

The court rejected the Applicant's comparators for ad-hoc promotions or training waivers, noting they either pertained to different grades or predated the 2018 rule for mandatory training, thus negating claims of discrimination.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that ad-hoc promotions are exceptions, not rights, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate circumstances warranting such an exception or a waiver of essential training, especially given the critical nature of the Junior Engineer role.

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that promotions are effective from the date granted, not from when vacancies arise, and there is no fundamental right to promotion itself, only to be considered for it.

This position applied more strongly after the Applicant's retirement, meaning no retrospective promotion could be granted.

The court held that the respondents' actions were not arbitrary or illegal, as the non-completion of mandatory 78-day training, a precondition for the Junior Engineer post, legitimately prevented the Applicant's promotion.

It found no evidence of discrimination or mala fide intent in the timing of the selection process or the denial of ad-hoc promotion, noting that alleged past instances were not comparable or predated the compulsory training rule.

The court reaffirmed that there is no fundamental right to promotion, nor can retrospective promotion be granted, especially following retirement.