Promotion Cannot Be Claimed as a Matter of Right During Pendency of Departmental Enquiry

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub Inspector, was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector on 10-04-2020

this order was recalled on 17-07-2020 because a departmental enquiry (DE) was pending against him at the time of the promotion

On 11-10-2021, the DE concluded with the imposition of a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, the effect of which lasted for one year, ending on 10-10-2022

The petitioner was subsequently promoted on 28-08-2023 following a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting held that month

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to set aside the rejection of his representation and claiming promotion with retrospective effect from 10-04-2020

1. Whether the promotion order dated 10-04-2020 was legally recalled due to the pendency of a departmental enquiry.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion from the date the penalty period expired (11-10-2022) in the absence of a convened DPC.

The Court applied the settled principle of service jurisprudence that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right

the pendency of a departmental enquiry at the time of consideration/promotion serves as a valid ground for recalling or withholding promotion. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court examines the legality of the administrative action rather than acting as an appellate body over DPC proceedings

The Court noted that at the time of the initial promotion order (10-04-2020), the fact of the pending departmental enquiry was not known to the competent authority; once discovered, the authority rectified the mistake by recalling the order on 17-07-2020

Regarding the petitioner's claim for promotion effective from the expiry of his penalty period (10-10-2022), the Court found that no DPC was convened between the expiry of the penalty and the actual date of his promotion in August 2023

The petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was excluded from any DPC held during that interim period. Consequently, since promotion is not an absolute right and depends upon the convening of a DPC, the petitioner’s claim for retrospective seniority was found to be without merit

The writ petition was dismissed at the motion stage. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of