Summary
The High Court directed reconsideration of promotion to Sports Officer against earlier vacancies under the former seniority criterion. The Court held that the employee had no vested right to promotion under the rules prevailing when the vacancy arose, but a right to consideration under the rules applicable when promotion was taken up. The year-wise vacancy provision did not require the old rules to govern. Any promotion independently obtained in the regular course was protected from the effect of this decision.
Issues
- Whether earlier vacancies had to be filled under the promotion criterion prevailing when they arose rather than the rules at consideration.
- Whether Rule 9(4) required the use of earlier rules.
Provisions considered
- Rule 9(4), Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006Year-wise determination of earlier unfilled promotional vacancies did not mandate filling them under the rules prevailing in each vacancy year. (¶ 9)
Held
- The employee had no vested right to promotion, but only to consideration under the rules existing when the promotion case was taken up. The High Court erred in rejecting the 2006 seniority-cum-merit and merit criteria merely because the vacancies related to 2003–2004. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7)
- Rangaiah concerned rules requiring the promotion exercise to be completed within the relevant year and was distinguishable. Rule 9(4) here concerned year-wise identification of earlier vacancies and did not impose the asserted obligation to apply the former rules. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- If the employee had meanwhile been promoted in the regular course, the decision would not affect the merits of that promotion. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal allowed and Division Bench judgment set aside, with any regular-course intervening promotion unaffected on its merits. No order as to costs.