No fundamental right to promotion; right is only to be considered per rules.

The applicants, Dr. Mohini Saxena, K.K. Kaul, and K.K.S. Goutam, were retired Scientists from the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR).

They challenged the respondents' action of not promoting them to the post of Scientist Group IV (6) (also referred to as Scientist G).

The applicants claimed they were discriminated against as retired employees and argued that amended rules should not apply to them.

Dr. Mohini Saxena retired on September 30, 2010, and was due for promotion in 2010-11 after completing her residency period of five years.

Her case was found eligible by the Centralised Screening Committee.

She was asked to submit a future plan and vision for the organization for the next 10 years, which she couldn't provide due to her superannuation.

Her promotion case was considered by the Peer Committee for the residency period of September 16, 2005, to September 16, 2010.

The Assessment Committee, which met on May 18 and 19, 2011, found six persons eligible for promotion, all of whom were working in the organization.

Her representation for review was rejected on February 28, 2013.

K.K. Kaul (Applicant No. 2) retired on July 31, 2010.

His case was considered by the Peer Committee for the residency period 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2009-10, due on July 18, 2005 (after seven years), July 18, 2006 (after eight years), and April 1, 2009 (after ten years).

He was not found fit for promotion.

He was informed of the result on October 19, 2011.

K.K.S. Goutam (Applicant No. 3) retired on November 30, 2007.

His case was considered by the Peer Committee for the years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08.

The assessment for 2005-06 and 2006-07 was delayed until April 2008 due to lack of approval and was conducted as per the revised rule 7.2 of the Scientist Recruitment & Assessment Promotion (CSRAP) Rules 2001.

He was not recommended for promotion.

The decision was communicated on August 19, 2009, and his representation dated October 1, 2009, was also rejected.

The respondents submitted that the rules were amended on March 20, 2008, introducing the 'Peer Committee' concept (Rule 7.2 of CSRAP Rules 2001, Annexure A/2).

These amended rules were made applicable for all pending cases as per the decision of the governing body on June 22, 2007.

The proforma for the work report was common for everyone, and retired officers eligible for assessment were required to provide relevant information.

The governing body had the power to amend rules in the organization's interest.

1. Whether the applicants, as retired employees, were unfairly discriminated against by the application of amended rules for promotion to the post of Scientist Group IV(6).

2. Whether the criteria requiring a "future plan" in the work report was arbitrary and discriminatory against retired employees.

3. Whether the applicants had a fundamental right to promotion.

The court primarily applied the Scientist Recruitment & Assessment Promotion Rules 2001 (CSRAP Rules 2001), including its amendments dated March 20, 2008, specifically Rule 7.2 concerning the 'Peer Committee'.

It also relied on the principle established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768), which cited Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that while there is no fundamental right to promotion itself, there is a fundamental right to be considered for promotion in accordance with relevant rules.

The court noted that the Peer Committee was constituted for all applicants for their respective residency periods, and promotions were based on annual confidential reports (ACRs) and work reports, under the CSRAP Rules 2001, as amended.

The respondents provided justification for the delay in holding assessment committees for earlier years until July 2007 due to lack of approval.

The court found that Applicant No. 3 was not found fit for promotion based on his ACRs and work report for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08.

Similarly, Applicant No. 1 was not found fit by the Assessment Committee for promotion from Group IV(5) to Group IV(6) based on her ACRs and work report.

Applicant No. 2's case was also considered by the Peer Committee under the amended Rule 7.2 of CSRAP Rules 2001, and he was not found fit for promotion.

The court rejected the argument regarding the common proforma for work reports, stating that only relevant information needed to be provided.

Crucially, the court emphasized that while the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, promotion itself is not.

Since the applicants' cases were considered as per the rules by the duly constituted Peer Committees and Assessment Committees, and no mala fides were alleged or brought on record by the applicants, the actions of the respondents were deemed to be as per rules and prescribed procedure.

The court found no merit in the applicants' cases, specifically holding that the applicants had been considered for promotion in accordance with the CSRAP Rules 2001, as amended, based on their ACRs and work reports.

The court reiterated that while there is a right to be considered for promotion, promotion itself is not a fundamental right.

No order as to costs.