Option for promotion under old regulations must be exercised within the strictly prescribed three-year limitation period.

The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer (Chemical Engineering) in a Government Polytechnic on 23.01.2015 and confirmed on 31.01.2017.

Under the U.P. Technical Education Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 1990, the post of Head of Department (HOD) was filled via promotion.

However, the AICTE Regulations, 2019 (adopted by U.P. in 2020/2021) changed the recruitment method for HOD to 100% direct recruitment.

To mitigate hardship, AICTE issued a Clarification on 20.05.2020 (Regulation 13), allowing existing faculty a one-time option to be considered for promotion under old rules, provided the option was exercised within three years of the notification (by 20.05.2023).

The petitioner exercised this option on 21.05.2024.

The Department subsequently promoted eight seniors to HOD positions against vacancies arising before the 2021 Rules but did not consider the petitioner for the two remaining vacancies.

1. Whether the three-year window to exercise the promotional option under Regulation 13 of the AICTE Clarifications, 2020, commenced from the date of the AICTE notification or the date of the State’s adoption of the 2021 Rules.

2. Whether the petitioner's exclusion from promotional consideration constituted hostile discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Regulation 13 of the AICTE Clarifications (2020), which mandates that the one-time option for promotion under old rules must be exercised within three years of the notification date (20.05.2020).

U.P. Technical Education (Teaching) Service Rules, 2021, specifically Rule 5, which prescribes 100% direct recruitment for the post of HOD.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2023), establishing that employees have a right to be considered for promotion only in accordance with the rules in force at the time of consideration, and vacancies do not necessarily have to be filled by the laws prevailing when they arose.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the three-year option period should be recalculated from the date the State promulgated the 2021 Rules (09.06.2021).

It held that Note 11 of the 2021 Rules merely adopted the AICTE 2019 Regulations and did not reset the clock for the 2020 Clarifications.

Since the notification was issued on 20.05.2020, the deadline was 20.05.2023; the petitioner’s application on 21.05.2024 was time-barred.

Regarding the claim of discrimination, the Court noted that the eight promoted individuals were all senior to the petitioner, and no junior had been promoted.

Furthermore, because the petitioner failed to validly exercise her one-time option, she possessed no enforceable legal right to be considered for promotion under the repealed 1990 Rules for vacancies governed by the 2021 Rules.

On the second issue, it held there was no hostile discrimination as no juniors were promoted.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioner failed to establish a statutory right to promotion and had not challenged the promotion of her seniors who were necessary parties.