In LPA-1146-2021(O&M)-PUNJ HC- No civil servant has right to be promoted to higher rank/post; Only right eligible aspirant would possess is right of consideration for promotion as and when any such process is initiated by employer, reiterates P&H HC
Justices Ravi Shanker Jha & Arun Palli [31-01-2023]

Read Order: Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab and Others 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, February 1, 2023: While dealing with an appeal involving the question of promotion of candidates allegedly ranked lower in the seniority list, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that the position of law is settled that no civil servant has a right to be promoted to a higher rank/post, as the only right an eligible aspirant would possess is a right of consideration for promotion as and when any such process is initiated by the employer.

Essentially, in this case before the Bench of Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli, the petitioner filed a writ petition to issue directions to consider the petitioner’s case seeking promotion to the post of Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-1, whose candidature was not considered and denied despite of the fact that his name featured at Serial No.6 of the Seniority Merit List and that some candidates featuring lower in the list were preferred over the petitioner.

This Writ was dismissed, hence, the present LPA was filed. 

Upon analysis of the matter, the Single Judge Bench concluded that in the absence of any rules that mandate a time frame within which, upon the vacancies being available, promotions have to be made, no such direction could be issued to the respondent-employer to promote the appellant. 

After hearing the parties, the Bench opined that the position of law is settled that no civil servant has a right to be promoted to a higher rank/post, as the only right an eligible aspirant would possess is a right of consideration for promotion as and when any such process is initiated by the employer. 

Adverting to the present case, the Bench observed that even though the appellant was at serial No.6 in the seniority list of Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-2, yet persons junior to him were promoted, was equally erroneous and misplaced. Further, the Bench opined that it would be crucial to point out here that appellant had retired from service in 2017 whereas the persons, purportedly junior to him were promoted as Medical Laboratory Technician Grade-1, post his retirement in 2019.

In view of the above, the present appeal was dismissed.