Promotion claims are governed by rules in force when consideration occurs, not when vacancies arise.

The two writ petitions concerned promotion in the Assam Fisheries Department and were heard together as they raised common questions of fact and law.

In WP(C) No. 2421/2025, the petitioners were serving in the feeder cadre of Fisheries Extension Officer/Fishery Development Officer and claimed eligibility for promotion to District Fisheries Development Officer under Rule 11(1)(c) of the Assam Fisheries and Aquaculture Service Rules, 2024.

They contended that they had completed more than ten years of service in different cadres and were therefore eligible under the alternative experience requirement, despite not completing five years in the immediate feeder cadre.

In WP(C) No. 2653/2025, the petitioner, a District Fisheries Development Officer with approximately 31 years of departmental service, claimed eligibility for promotion to Deputy Director of Fisheries under Rule 11(1)(b), which prescribed either three years’ service in the specified feeder posts or twelve years’ continuous service in different cadres of the Department.

The DPC meeting held on 9 April 2025 did not recommend the petitioners for promotion and instead recorded that the eligibility criteria required examination and possible amendment.

The State subsequently amended Rule 11 through notifications dated 9 December 2024 and 12 February 2026, altering the recruitment and eligibility framework.

Whether the petitioners had a vested or enforceable right to be considered for promotion against vacancies which arose before the amendment of the Assam Fisheries and Aquaculture Service Rules, 2024, under the pre-amended Rules?

Whether the DPC acted unlawfully by declining to recommend the petitioners for promotion on 9 April 2025 and by recommending examination and amendment of the eligibility criteria instead?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to a review DPC and retrospective consideration for promotion against existing or anticipated vacancies?

The Court applied Rule 11(1)(b) and Rule 11(1)(c) of the Assam Fisheries and Aquaculture Service Rules, 2024, which prescribe alternative eligibility routes for promotion to Deputy Director of Fisheries and District Fisheries Development Officer, respectively.

It considered the principle in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284, that vacancies arising before amendment of service rules may, in appropriate circumstances, be governed by the earlier Rules.

However, relying principally on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, (2023) 3 SCC 773, together with Deepak Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Union of India v. Krishna Kumar, and related authorities, the Court held that there is no universal rule requiring every vacancy to be filled under the Rules existing when the vacancy arose.

An employee has a right to be considered for promotion under the Rules in force on the date of consideration, but no vested right to promotion or to consideration under repealed or amended Rules.

The Government may also consciously defer filling vacancies pending restructuring or amendment of the Rules, provided the decision is fair, reasonable and consistent with Article 14.

The Court held that the petitioners’ claims depended on the proposition that vacancies must invariably be filled under the Rules prevailing when those vacancies arose.

The Court rejected that proposition in light of Raj Kumar, which substantially confined the application of Rangaiah to its particular facts and clarified that the right to promotion is not vested; the enforceable right is only to fair consideration under the Rules in force when consideration takes place.

In the present case, the DPC met on 9 April 2025 and expressly recommended examination of the eligibility provisions before filling the posts.

The subsequent amendments demonstrated a conscious governmental decision not to fill the disputed vacancies under the pre-amended framework.

Since the petitioners did not challenge the validity of the amendments and could not establish any statutory duty requiring the State to prepare and operate a promotional panel under the earlier Rules, they were not entitled to a review DPC, retrospective promotion, or consideration against the unamended eligibility criteria.

The Court also noted that mere existence of vacancies, including anticipated vacancies, did not create an enforceable right to promotion.

It held that the petitioners had no vested right to promotion or to consideration under the pre-amended Assam Fisheries and Aquaculture Service Rules, 2024.

Their claims had to be assessed under the Rules in force when the promotional consideration was undertaken, subject to the validity of the Government’s policy decision and amendments.

The prayers for quashing the DPC proceedings dated 9 April 2025, holding a review DPC, and granting retrospective promotion were rejected.

Both WP(C) No. 2421/2025 and WP(C) No. 2653/2025 were dismissed, with no order as to costs.