Non-consideration of Seniors for Regular Promotion Despite Eligibility and Promotion of Juniors is Arbitrarily Discriminatory

The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Registrars/District Co-operative Officers on 14.11.2008 and confirmed on 15.11.2010

Despite completing over 17 years of service and the availability of vacant promotional posts of Deputy and Joint Registrars, the respondents failed to convene Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings for regular promotion

Meanwhile, officers junior to the petitioners (at Serial Nos. 27 and 28 of the seniority list, whereas petitioners were at Nos. 21 and 17) were granted provisional promotions/postings

The respondents contended that the petition lacked merit as the petitioners were granted financial benefits under the 1st MACP in 2025

However, the petitioners demonstrated that a subsequent modification notification (Memo No. 518) reverted their Grade Pay to the original Rs. 5,400/-, denying them actual financial or promotional advancement

1. Whether the administrative delay in convening DPC meetings and the failure to consider senior eligible officers for regular promotion—while promoting their juniors—constitutes an arbitrary and discriminatory practice under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

2. Whether the grant of MACP financial benefits can be treated as a substitute for regular functional promotion when promotional vacancies exist

Rule 17 of the Jharkhand Co-operative Society Rules, 2012, which mandates that promotions be considered by a Departmental Committee based on seniority and eligibility

Resolution No. 398 dated 16.01.2012 and Resolution No. 210 dated 12.05.2014, which establish the qualifying service periods for promotion (5 years for each grade) and allow for a 50% relaxation in the prescribed period if promotion is delayed due to administrative reasons

Resolution No. 3286 dated 07.02.2014, requiring DPC meetings to be held at least twice a year

The court reasoned that the respondents' defense regarding MACP was factually misleading because the Grade Pay of the petitioners remained at Rs. 5,400/- following the modification in Memo No. 518

The court observed that under Rule 17, the respondents were legally bound to place the petitioners' cases before a DPC, especially since promotional vacancies existed and junior officers had already been elevated

The court emphasized that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental component of Articles 14 and 16; thus, passing over senior eligible employees without valid recorded reasons is legally unsustainable

Furthermore, the court noted that since the petitioners faced no legal impediments like criminal cases or departmental proceedings, the administrative failure to convene timely DPCs constituted "administrative inaction"

The court directed the respondents to convene a DPC within 12 weeks to consider the petitioners' promotion to the posts of Deputy Registrar and subsequently Joint Registrar. If found eligible, the petitioners are to be granted notional promotion from the date their juniors were promoted, along with all consequential and financial benefits. Any refusal of promotion must be communicated via a reasoned, speaking order