Retrospective amendment adding promotional qualifications is valid where no vested promotion right has accrued.

The petitioner was appointed as a Graduate Typist in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service on 02.11.2017 and completed his probation on 03.12.2019, thereby becoming eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant under the then-existing Rule 14 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service.

The crucial date for the 2020–21 promotional panel was 01.08.2020.

On 07.01.2020, an amendment was proposed requiring candidates to pass a foundational training course. Subsequently, G.O.(Ms.) No.90 dated 13.09.2021 amended Rule 14 retrospectively with effect from 07.01.2020, making successful completion of the foundational course an essential qualification for promotion.

The petitioner passed the foundational course only on 09.03.2021, after the crucial date.

The petitioner challenged G.O.(Ms.) No.90 dated 13.09.2021 and the consequential G.O.(4D) No.26 dated 10.11.2021, contending that his right to be considered for promotion had accrued before the retrospective amendment. He sought inclusion of his name in the 2020–21 promotional panel with consequential service and monetary benefits.

The respondents contended that no panel had been prepared as on the crucial date and that the petitioner lacked the newly prescribed qualification.

1. Whether the petitioner had a vested right to be considered for promotion under the unamended Rule 14 merely because he had completed probation and was eligible under the earlier rules, despite no promotional panel having been prepared?

2. Whether the retrospective amendment to Rule 14, requiring a pass in the foundational training course with effect from 07.01.2020, could validly be applied to the 2020–21 promotional panel?

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to inclusion in the 2020–21 panel when he passed the foundational course only on 09.03.2021, after the crucial date of 01.08.2020?

The Court applied the principle that promotion is not a matter of right, although consideration for promotion may constitute a right; such consideration remains subject to fulfilment of the qualifications prescribed under the applicable service rules.

Under Article 309 of the Constitution, the competent authority may amend service rules retrospectively, provided that the amendment does not impair an accrued or vested right.

The Court relied on S.S. Bola v. B.D. Sardana, (1997) 8 SCC 522, for the proposition that seniority is not a vested right and may be altered by retrospective legislation or rules.

It also relied on State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar, (2023) 3 SCC 773, for the principle that vacancies need not invariably be filled under the rules existing on the date on which the vacancies arose.

The Court distinguished Bank of Baroda v. G. Palani, Civil Appeal No.5525 of 2012, decided on 13.02.2018, observing that the case concerned an accrued pensionary right, unlike a claim for promotion.

The Court held that the petitioner’s completion of probation made him eligible for consideration under the earlier Rule 14 but did not confer a vested right to promotion or to inclusion in a promotional panel.

The crucial fact was that no panel for the post of Assistant had been prepared as on 01.08.2020, and the petitioner’s name had never been included in such a panel.

Therefore, no accrued right had crystallised before the retrospective amendment.

Since the State was competent under Article 309 to amend the service rules retrospectively, the amended Rule 14 could validly require the foundational course qualification.

The petitioner had in any event passed the course only on 09.03.2021, after the relevant crucial date, and consequently did not satisfy the applicable qualification for the 2020–21 panel.

The precedents concerning vested pensionary rights did not assist him because the claim involved promotion, not an accrued retiral benefit.

It held that the petitioner had no vested right to be included in the 2020–21 promotional panel because no panel had been prepared and his name had not been included before the retrospective amendment.

The retrospective amendment to Rule 14 under G.O.(Ms.) No.90 dated 13.09.2021 was held valid and applicable, and the petitioner’s subsequent completion of the foundational course did not cure his lack of qualification as on the crucial date.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed without costs, and the challenge to the impugned Government Orders and the claim for retrospective inclusion, service benefits, and monetary benefits were rejected.