2012 (4) TMI 481 - HC - Indian Laws

Vested right of promotion petitioners passed the department examination, for the post of Senior Tax Assistants in February, 2009 seeking consideration for promotion to that category before 1.1.2010 - vacancies were identified as available as on 1.1.2010 to operate during F.Y. 2010-11 Held that - Appointment to a higher category, even by promotion, is not a vested entitlement. It is also the vested right that among the persons in the field of choice, seniority will apply unless the junior has certain other grounds for marching over the priority based on seniority that may be available to an admitted senior. In present case, petitioners do not have any claim that any person junior to them in same category was given promotion in preference to them. Further, period of service would be counted from actual date of promotion and not from availability of vacancy Petition dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Promotion eligibility based on passing departmental examination, consideration for promotion to Senior Tax Assistants, promotion to Inspectors, preponing promotions, vested entitlement for promotion, seniority in promotions, eligibility for promotion based on examination date, reckoning promotion date for service calculation.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of promotion eligibility for the petitioners who passed the departmental examination for Senior Tax Assistants in February 2009. The court notes that they could not have been considered for promotion before January 1, 2010. It is established that 21 vacancies were available as of January 1, 2010, to operate from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011. The petitioners did not claim that their junior colleagues who passed the exam in February 2009 were promoted ahead of them. The court emphasizes that appointment to a higher category through promotion is not a vested entitlement, but rather the right to be considered for promotion. Seniority applies unless a junior has valid grounds to supersede a senior based on seniority. The petitioners failed to dispute the promotion of a junior, Prakash Unnikrishnan, who passed the exam earlier and was promoted after the vacancy list became operational.

The judgment further discusses the petitioners' argument regarding the movement to the category of Inspectors from April 1, 2010. The court clarifies that the period for service calculation starts from the actual promotion date and cannot be predated to the commencement of the vacancy list. Therefore, the plea to reckon the promotion date for service calculation from April 1, 2010, is rejected.

In conclusion, the court dismisses the original petition, ruling against the petitioners. The judgment highlights the principles governing promotion eligibility, seniority, and the calculation of service period concerning promotions. The decision underscores the importance of considering actual promotion dates for service calculation and emphasizes that appointment by promotion is not an automatic entitlement but a right to be considered for promotion based on merit and seniority.