Right to consideration for promotion is not a vested or indefeasible right.

The applicants, comprising Assistant Accounts Officers (AAOs) and Senior Accountants in the Pay & Accounts Division (PAD) cadre of the Border Security Force (BSF), filed an OA seeking promotion to higher posts.

Applicant nos. 1 to 8 were promoted to AAO via order dated 03.07.2006, with the post formerly known as Junior Accounts Officer.

They claimed eligibility for promotion to Senior Accounts Officer/Accounts Officer, having completed five years of service as required by applicable Recruitment Rules (RRs), and noted existing vacancies due to retirements and promotions.

Despite representations and DoPT instructions to convene DPCs annually, no promotions were granted, leading to stagnation for 7 to 9 years.

Applicant nos. 9 to 11, Senior Accountants, were eligible for promotion to AAO, which is a feeder post for further promotion.

The respondents countered that PAD, BSF was integrated into the Departmental Accounting Organisation (DAO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), on 19.04.2010, and posts were encadred into the Central Civil Accounts Service (CCAS).

While most PAD BSF employees opted for CCAS encadrement, the applicants chose to remain in the PAD BSF cadre.

This led to a need for rationalization and proportional distribution of posts between CCAS and PAD BSF cadres, which was finally approved via O.M. dated 02.03.2015.

A DPC was subsequently held to fill a vacancy for Senior Accounts Officer on 01.03.2015.

The respondents further stated that some applicants did not fulfill eligibility conditions for promotion, including passing the JAO examination, and that no vacancies currently exist in the PAD BSF cadre for the promotional posts.

The applicants did not challenge MHA's OM No. CF—94732/2011/Pers III dated 17.08.2011, which detailed the integration.

Some applicants retired during the pendency of the OA.

1. Whether the respondents' inaction in convening Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs) for the applicants was illegal, unconstitutional, unfair, unjustified, or arbitrary.

2. Whether the applicants have a vested right to promotion despite the non-challenge of the MHA's integration order and the rationalization of posts.

The court considered the DoP&T instructions requiring annual DPCs for filling vacancies to avoid delays in promotion.

It also acknowledged the Recruitment Rules (RRs) for promotion based on five years of service.

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 13187 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 43488 of 2023) – Govt. of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & others dated 27.11.2024, which held that the right to be considered for promotion, while a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, is not a vested, absolute, unfettered, indefeasible, or inalienable right.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' claims for promotion were weakened by their failure to challenge MHA's OM No. CF-94732/2011/Pers III dated 17.08.2011, which integrated the accounting organizations and led to the encadrement process.

This integration and subsequent rationalization of posts between CCAS and PAD BSF cadres were central to the respondents' reorganization.

The court noted that promotion becomes effective upon assumption of duties, not on the date of vacancy or recommendation.

Therefore, applicants who retired during the pendency of the OA no longer had a vested right to promotion.

Furthermore, the respondents' argument that promotional opportunities were affected by the applicants' choice not to opt for the CCAS cadre and the subsequent need for rationalization was persuasive.

The rationalization was approved in March 2015, and the DPC process was initiated thereafter, showing that the respondents had taken steps.

Finally, the absence of current vacancies in the PAD BSF cadre, combined with some applicants not meeting eligibility criteria under the re-configured rules, undermined their claim for immediate promotion.

The OA lacked merit and was accordingly dismissed.

MAs, if any, were also dismissed.

There was no order as to cost.