Promotion is not a fundamental right, though the right to be considered for promotion is.

The applicants, Dr. Mohini Saxena, K.K. Kaul, and K.K.S. Goutam, are retired scientists from the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR).

They challenged the respondents' action of not promoting them to the post of Scientist Group IV(6)/Scientist 'G', alleging discrimination as retired employees and the application of amended rules not applicable to them.

Dr. Mohini Saxena retired on September 30, 2010, K.K. Kaul on July 31, 2010, and K.K.S. Goutam on November 30, 2007.

They claimed eligibility for promotion prior to the amended Scientist Recruitment & Assessment Promotion Rules 2001 (CSRAP Rules 2001) as amended on March 20, 2008.

The applicants' cases were considered by Peer Committees based on Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and work reports.

A specific column in the work report for "future plan indicating involvement in new research areas" could not be filled by the retired applicants, leading to their non-consideration for promotion.

The respondents contended that the amended rules were applicable to all pending cases and the proforma was common for all, with committees considering relevant information provided.

The Assessment Committee met on May 18-19, 2011, and promoted six currently working persons, but no retired employees.

Applicant No. 1's representation for review was rejected.

Applicant No. 2 was not found fit for promotion by the Peer Committee.

Applicant No. 3 was also not recommended for promotion for the years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08, with the assessment for the first two years being delayed until April 2008.

Whether the action of the respondents in not granting promotion to the applicants, who are retired employees, on the basis of amended rules and a work report proforma was discriminatory and unjustified.

Whether the applicants have a fundamental right to promotion itself, or merely a right to be considered for promotion.

The court primarily applied the Scientist Recruitment & Assessment Promotion Rules 2001 (CSRAP Rules 2001), as amended on March 20, 2008 (Annexure A/2), specifically Rule 7.2 concerning promotion criteria and the constitution of the Peer Committee.

It also relied on judicial precedents, including Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768, which reiterated that while there is a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself.

This principle was further supported by Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that Article 16(1) of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity to be *considered* for promotion, but not the promotion itself.

The Tribunal analyzed that the Peer Committees were duly constituted for all applicants under the CSRAP Rules 2001, as amended, and considered their ACRs and work reports.

The respondents justified the delay in assessments for 2005-06 and 2006-07 due to lack of competent authority approval.

The court noted that for Applicant No. 1, the Peer Committee considered her case for the residency period based on ACRs and work reports, but she was not found fit.

Similarly, Applicant No. 2 and No. 3 were assessed according to the amended Rule 7.2 of the CSRAP Rules 2001 and were not found fit for promotion.

The respondents maintained that the work report proforma was common and not arbitrary, and relevant information was considered.

Crucially, the Tribunal emphasized the settled legal principle from Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das and other Supreme Court cases, stating that while the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, promotion itself is not.

Thus, the committee's decision based on the stated criteria, even if it led to non-promotion of retired employees, did not violate a fundamental right to promotion.

The Peer Committees had considered the applicants as per the CSRAP Rules 2001, as amended, and based their decisions on ACRs and work reports.

Therefore, the Original Applications were dismissed.