Right to be considered for promotion is fundamental; promotion itself is not a fundamental right.

The applicants, retired scientists from the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), challenged the respondents' action of not promoting them to the post of Scientist Group IV (6)

They contended that amended rules, specifically rule 7.2 of the Scientist Recruitment & Assessment Promotion Rules 2001 (CSRAP Rules 2001) as amended on 20.03.2008, were unfairly applied to them despite their eligibility for promotion prior to the amendment

Applicant no. 1 retired on 30.09.2010, Applicant no. 2 on 31.07.2010, and Applicant no. 3 on 30.11.2007

The applicants argued that a specific column in the work report proforma, requiring a "future plan indicating involvement in new research areas," discriminated against retired employees as they could not fill it

The Assessment Committee, which met on 18th and 19th May 2011, found six currently working persons eligible for promotion but none of the retired applicants

The respondents contended that the governing body of CSIR is empowered to amend rules and that the actions taken were as per the CSRAP Rules 2001, including the amended rule 7.2, and that the work report proforma was common for all and not discriminatory

They stated that the applicants were considered by the Peer Committee based on their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and work done during their residency periods but were not found fit for promotion

1. Whether the applicants, being retired employees, were unfairly discriminated against by the application of amended rules for promotion to Scientist Group IV (6)

2. Whether the requirement to submit a "future plan indicating involvement in new research areas" in the work report proforma was arbitrary and discriminatory against retired employees

3. Whether the non-grant of promotion to the applicants by the Assessment Committee was in accordance with the applicable rules and principles of law

The court primarily applied the Scientist Recruitment & Assessment Promotion Rules 2001 (CSRAP Rules 2001), including its amendment on 20.03.2008, specifically rule 7.2 concerning the Peer Committee and assessment procedures

It also relied on the principle established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in *Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768*, affirming 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* (citing *Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty* and *Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab*), which reiterated that Article 16(1) of the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, but not the promotion itself

The court analyzed that the Peer Committee was constituted for all three applicants for their respective residency periods, and promotions were based on their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and work reports, as per CSRAP Rules 2001, which were amended from time to time

The respondents provided justification for the delay in holding Assessment Committees for 2005-06 and 2006-07 until July 2007 due to pending approval, and that assessment for Applicant No. 3 was handled under the revised rule 7.2

The argument regarding the discriminatory nature of the "future plan" column was addressed by the respondents stating it was a common proforma and that assessment committees considered all relevant information provided by candidates, irrespective of their retirement status

The court noted that Applicants 1, 2, and 3 were considered by the Peer Committee and Assessment Committee but were not found fit for promotion based on their ACRs and work reports

Relying on Apex Court precedents, the Tribunal affirmed that while the applicants have a right to be considered for promotion, promotion itself is not a fundamental right

The actions of the respondents were found to be in accordance with the established rules and procedures

The court concluded that there was no merit in the applicants' claim of discrimination or arbitrary application of rules since their cases were considered by the Peer Committee and Assessment Committee as per the CSRAP Rules 2001 and its amendments

The court reiterated that applicants have a right to be considered for promotion, but promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right

Therefore, the Tribunal found no grounds to quash the impugned orders or grant the relief sought by the applicants