Right to consideration for promotion does not confer an absolute right to be promoted.

The applicant joined the respondent department as a Lascar on a casual basis in 1992 and was confirmed in 2005

Following the abolition of the post of Lascar, the applicant was promoted to the post of Greaser effective 08.07.2009

The applicant sought further promotion to higher posts such as Launch Mechanic, Sukhani, or Sr. Deck Hand, asserting he had completed the requisite years of service

Departmental Promotion Committees (DPC) convened in 2015 and 2018 promoted other candidates (Shri R.K. Swain and Shri D.K. Rout) to the post of Launch Mechanic based on seniority and fitness

The applicant’s representation for promotion was rejected by the respondents on 05.04.2019, which he challenged in the present O.A., further claiming he should be considered for "deck side" posts (Sukhani/Sr. Deck Hand) as he possessed technical qualifications

1. Whether the applicant had a vested right to be promoted to the post of Launch Mechanic notwithstanding the findings of the DPC.

2. Whether the applicant, as a Greaser, could be legally considered for promotion to posts in the "deck side" (Sukhani or Sr. Deck Hand) under the existing Recruitment Rules.

The court primarily applied the Marine Organisation of Customs and Central Excise Department (Group C and D posts) Recruitment Rules, 1994, which prescribe specific eligibility and feeder categories for promotion: Launch Mechanic requires 5 years as a Greaser and qualifying an interview; Sukhani requires service as a Sr. Deck Hand or Seaman; and Sr. Deck Hand requires service as a Seaman

The Tribunal further relied on the settled legal principle that while an employee has a right to be considered for promotion, they do not have an absolute right to be promoted

Additionally, it applied the doctrine of judicial restraint regarding the merits of DPC assessments, holding that Tribunals cannot substitute their judgment for that of a DPC in evaluating a candidate's fitness

The Tribunal examined the 1994 Recruitment Rules and found that the applicant, as a Greaser, was only in the feeder grade for Launch Mechanic.

Although the applicant was considered by the DPC, he was not recommended because he was not found fit during the assessment process, which included an interview and review of service records.

The Tribunal noted that it cannot interfere with the DPC’s merit-based findings or the selection of the most suitable candidate for a single vacancy.

Regarding the applicant’s plea for promotion to "deck side" posts like Sukhani or Sr. Deck Hand, the Tribunal observed that the Recruitment Rules are specific to each cadre; since the rules do not provide for Greasers (engine side) to be promoted to deck side posts, the respondents committed no illegality in refusing such consideration.

The court upheld the rejection order dated 05.04.2019.

Regarding the applicant's claim for MACP II, the Tribunal declined to grant relief as it was not the subject matter of the O.A., but granted the applicant liberty to submit a fresh application to the respondents for appropriate consideration.