Source Quotas Operable Through Running Roster of Vacancies; No Vested Right to Promotion Under Superseded Rules.

The Petitioner, a Private Secretary at the University, sought promotion to Assistant Registrar under the 2017 Recruitment Rules, having completed five years of service on April 1, 2020.

The 2017 Rules prescribed a 1:3 promotional ratio between Private Secretaries and Section Officers.

While the Petitioner was eligible, the University was revising its rules; the 2021 Rules were notified on June 2, 2021, increasing the qualifying service to eight years and merging the feeder cadres.

The University rejected the Petitioner's request for promotion under the 2017 Rules via communications dated December 15, 2021, and January 21, 2022, arguing that the 1:3 ratio on two available posts resulted in fractional posts (0.5 for Private Secretaries), rendering her ineligible.

The Petitioner challenged these communications, seeking retrospective promotion.

1. Whether the 1:3 ratio under the 2017 Rules should be operated via a continuing vacancy cycle or by fractional division of posts.

2. Whether the Petitioner acquired a vested right to be considered under the 2017 Rules upon completing qualifying service prior to the 2021 amendment.

3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to retrospective promotion and consequential benefits due to the University's failure to convene a DPC.

The Court applied the principle from State of Punjab v. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar and All India Federation of Central Excise v. UOI, establishing that a source quota must be operated through a running roster applied to successive vacancies, not by earmarking fractional physical posts.

The Court relied on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, which overruled the Y.V. Rangaiah doctrine, holding that a government servant has no vested right to be promoted under superseded rules and is governed by the rules in force at the time of consideration.

The principle of "malice in law" from Sunil Kumar Mehra v. MCD was considered but distinguished.

The Court found the University’s fractional interpretation of the 1:3 ratio legally flawed, noting that such logic would render the Private Secretary promotional channel illusory, as a whole post would never materialize in a small cadre; instead, a running roster of vacancies was mandatory.

The Court held that the Petitioner did not acquire a vested right to the 2017 Rules simply by becoming eligible before their repeal.

Following Raj Kumar, since no DPC had been initiated or selection process commenced before June 2021, the 2021 Rules (requiring 8 years of service) became the applicable law.

The Court dismissed the plea of "malice in law," finding no evidence that the University deliberately delayed the DPC to disadvantage the Petitioner.

Since the Petitioner completed eight years of service by April 2023 and the University was filling posts via deputation despite promotion being the preferred mode under the 2021 Rules, her claim for current consideration remained valid.

The Court held that the Petitioner must be considered under the 2021 Rules.

The Court directed the University to convene a DPC within eight weeks to consider the Petitioner for the post of Assistant Registrar. If found fit, the promotion shall be prospective from the date of the order, without retrospective seniority or monetary benefits.