Vacancies confer no automatic right to promotion, but eligible employees are entitled to fair consideration.

The applicant, a Prosecuting Officer appointed in 1993, was placed as Deputy Director Prosecution in December 2013.

He claimed that, after completing two years in that position, he became eligible for promotion to Joint Director Prosecution in 2015 and sought further promotion to Director Prosecution, along with retrospective and consequential benefits.

The respondents maintained that the 2013 placement was only an in-charge arrangement and stated that seniority disputes and related litigation had delayed regular promotions.

The applicant was promoted or regularised as Deputy Director Prosecution by Government Order dated 30 December 2022.

He had also submitted a representation dated 25 May 2022 seeking promotion.

He filed this application seeking promotion and consideration of his representation; the respondents objected that he had approached the Tribunal before six months had elapsed from the representation.

Whether the applicant was entitled to a direction for promotion to Joint Director Prosecution and thereafter Director Prosecution, with retrospective benefits from 2015, or instead to consideration of his claim under the applicable rules.

Whether the respondents’ preliminary objection under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 required dismissal of the application.

Under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 19 provides for an application to the Tribunal, while Section 20 concerns exhaustion of remedies.

The Tribunal applied the principle that eligibility for promotion is distinct from entitlement to promotion: a vacancy alone does not create a right to promotion from the date it arose, but an eligible employee has a right to fair consideration under the applicable recruitment rules.

Consideration depends on such matters as vacancies, quota, seniority, qualifying service, and assessment by the competent authority.

Whether in-charge service counts towards qualifying service, and the effective date of regular promotion, must be determined under the applicable rules and the relevant orders.

The judgment does not identify a specific recruitment-rule provision or name a precedent for these principles.

The Tribunal declined to presume that the applicant met the requirements for promotion merely because he had served in an in-charge capacity or because vacancies were reported.

It held that the respondents must determine the effective date of his regular promotion under the 2022 order and whether his in-charge service counts towards qualifying service.

They must also consider the revised seniority, relevant vacancy dates and quotas, and the applicant’s eligibility at each promotional level.

The applicant’s service record may inform suitability but cannot replace prescribed promotion conditions.

Because the record did not establish entitlement to promotion from 2015, the Tribunal left the substantive determination to the competent authority, including a DPC or other prescribed body where warranted.

It rejected the Section 20 objection as a basis for requiring the applicant to restart the process, given the pending proceedings and the relief granted.

The respondents must examine the applicant’s claim for promotion to Joint Director Prosecution under the applicable rules, taking account of revised seniority, vacancy information, the effective date of regular promotion or regularisation, and whether in-charge service counts towards qualifying service.

They must separately consider promotion to Director Prosecution if he meets the prescribed conditions.

If found entitled, the respondents must determine the permissible effective date and consequential benefits under the rules; no automatic promotion or arrears from 2015 were granted.

A reasoned decision must be communicated within three months.

No order as to costs.