Promotion is not a fundamental right; candidates only possess a right to consideration under prevailing rules.

The petitioner, an Aanganwadi worker belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, sought a writ of mandamus for promotion to the post of Mukhya Sevika (Class-III).

In 2007, nominations were reportedly considered unit-wise

In 2010, one Parmar Urmilaben was nominated from the petitioner's unit, but her appointment was cancelled following an objection by the petitioner regarding her qualifications

The petitioner claimed that as the only remaining eligible SC candidate in that unit, she should have been nominated

However, the respondent prepared a common district-wide seniority list for Bhavnagar in 2010

In this district-wide merit list, the petitioner secured 29 marks, while two other SC candidates secured 30 marks and were thus more meritorious

During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was eventually nominated to the post on 26.09.2016

Consequently, the prayer was limited to whether she was entitled to the appointment with retrospective effect from 2010

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of Mukhya Sevika (Class-III) with retrospective effect from 2010

2. Whether the respondent was legally mandated to nominate candidates for the post of Mukhya Sevika on a unit-wise basis rather than a district-wide seniority basis

The court applied the Mukhya Sevika, Class III, in the Superior Panchayat Service Recruitment Rules, 2004, which governs appointments via direct selection and nomination

It relied on the principle that while the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, the right to claim promotion is not, as established in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das

Furthermore, following Dilip Kumar Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court noted that administrative authorities have the discretion to determine qualifications and policy for promotion, and courts should not interfere unless there is a clear constitutional or statutory violation

Finally, per State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar, there is no universal rule that vacancies must be filled based on rules existing when they arose; candidates are only entitled to consideration under the rules prevailing at the time of such consideration

The petitioner failed to produce any statutory rule or provision mandating that nominations must be conducted on a unit-wise basis

The Court observed that the respondent’s transition to a common district-wide seniority list for the Bhavnagar District was a valid administrative action

Upon reviewing the merits, the Court found that even after the cancellation of Urmilaben's appointment, the petitioner was not the most meritorious candidate in the SC category; two other candidates, Jayshreeben C. Solanki and Ashaben N. Solanki, held higher marks (30) than the petitioner (29)

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was not the highest meritorious candidate in the district-wide list, she had no legal right to jump the seniority/merit order

The court emphasized that policy decisions regarding promotion criteria are within the absolute discretion of the state and do not warrant judicial interference unless they are demonstrably unconstitutional

The Court found no irregularity in the respondent's actions, especially since the petitioner had already been appointed in 2016

The writ petition was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged