Summary
An Air Commodore ranked first on merit but third in seniority challenged the promotion policy after retiring before a vacancy became available in his turn. The Court upheld the two-stage policy selecting officers by merit and arranging the resulting select list by seniority. Loss of a promotion opportunity through lack of a vacancy did not invalidate the policy.
Issues
- Whether arranging a merit-selected promotion list by seniority violated equal opportunity.
Held
- The policy must be read as a whole rather than assigned an assumed label of merit-cum-seniority or seniority-cum-merit. It first shortlisted candidates by eligibility and appraisal and Board marks, then required promotion from that list in seniority order against suitable vacancies. That arrangement was not inherently arbitrary or discriminatory. (¶¶ 8, 10, 18, 21, 22)
- Eligible officers have a right to consideration for promotion, not an unconditional right to promotion. Retirement before a vacancy arose affected the appellant’s chance of promotion and did not establish illegality in the applicable policy. (¶¶ 13, 18, 19, 21)
- The fact-specific relief in Major General Manoj Luthra did not strike down the policy or constitute binding precedent on its validity, since the policy’s merits were not examined there. (¶ 20)
- Independently, the appellant was estopped from challenging the known policy after participating in selection under it and failing to obtain promotion. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Result
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal’s refusal to interfere with the promotion policy dated 20 February 2008.