Promotion cannot be claimed on seniority alone when no vacancy exists in the relevant panel year.

The petitioner, appointed as a Junior Assistant in 1991 and transferred by mutual transfer to the Madurai region in 1996, was promoted as an Assistant in 2005, against the panel for 2003.

He sought placement at Serial No. 11 in the 2001 Assistant promotion panel and consequential promotions, contending that his exclusion had delayed his career progression

The department stated that the 2001 panel covered ten vacancies, all filled by candidates senior to him, and that there were no vacancies in 2002; his requests for retrospective placement were rejected

He challenged those rejection proceedings under Article 226

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to placement at Serial No. 11 in the 2001 Assistant promotion panel when the department stated that only ten vacancies existed and ten seniors were promoted.

2. Whether the petitioner could obtain relief on the basis that vacancies existed in 2002, despite not filing a rejoinder disputing the department’s statement that the 2002 vacancy report was nil.

The Court referred to its jurisdiction under Article 226, invoked in the petition, but cited no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.

Its reasoning proceeded on the case-specific principle that retrospective placement in a promotion panel is not warranted where the available vacancies were filled by eligible seniors; the Court also considered the absence of a rejoinder disputing the department’s account of there being no vacancies in the following year.

The department’s counter stated that ten vacancies were available in 2001 and that all ten candidates senior to the petitioner were promoted; on that account, the petitioner would not have been promoted even if included in the panel.

Although the petitioner relied on RTI information to dispute the assertion that there were no vacancies in 2002, he had filed no rejoinder denying the counter-affidavit’s account of a nil vacancy report.

The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the challenged proceedings, while leaving the petitioner free to pursue the distinct 2002-panel issue by representation.

It granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation concerning the alleged non-drawing of a panel for 2002 and to pursue that matter in accordance with law.