Government Employees cannot Claim Promotion as their Right: Supreme Court

Recently in the Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. vs. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. case, the Supreme Court (SC) of India said that government employees cannot claim promotion as their right. The SC bench consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice JB Pardiwala said, “In India, no government servant can claim promotion as their right because the Constitution does not prescribe criteria for filling seats in promotional posts. The Legislature or the executive may decide the method for filling vacancies to promotional posts based on the nature of employment and the functions that the candidate will be expected to discharge. The courts cannot sit in review to decide whether the policy adopted for promotion is suited to select the ‘best candidates’, unless on the limited ground where it violates the principle of equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution.” The matter revolves around the promotion process for Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the cadre of District Judges in Gujarat. In this case, two judicial officers of the rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) governed by the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, invoked the jurisdiction of the top court under Article 32 of the Constitution. Their grievance against the Gujarat High Court was that it erroneously applied the principle of ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ in the recruitment undertaken by it in the year 2022 for the promotion of Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the post of Additional District Judge against 65% quota, though Rule 5(1) of the 2005 Rules stipulates that the promotion should be based on the principle of ‘Merit-cum- Seniority’. 

During the proceedings, the SC bench explained the principles of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ and ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’. The bench stated that the ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ in the context of the 2005 Rules implies that both merit and seniority would be considered in the promotion of a candidate, with merit being determined on the basis of a suitability test. It also addressed the question “Whether promotion of Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the cadre of District Judges in accordance with Rule 5(1) of the 2005 Rules and the Recruitment Notice dated 12.04.2022 issued by the High Court of Gujarat is contrary to the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ as laid down in All India Judges’ Association.” After hearing the contentions from both sides, the SC bench dismissed the writ petition and upheld the promotion process adopted by the Gujarat High Court. The bench pointed out that it would be incorrect to hold that merely because the test was not one of comparative merit and as seniority was applied at the final stage of the selection process, the process cannot be said to be one not adhering to the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’. It further held that “it is beyond any doubt that the criteria prescribed for promotion of candidates to the 65% promotional quota complies with the principle of Merit-cum-Seniority.” 

The SC bench pointed out that the terms ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ or ‘Seniority- cum-Merit’ are not statutorily defined by the legislature. It added, “These principles are judicial connotations that have been evolved over a period of years through various decisions of this Court and the High Courts whilst dealing with matters of promotion pertaining to different statutes and service conditions.” Furthermore, the SC observed, “The principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ and ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ are a flexible and a fluid concept akin to broad principles within which the actual promotion policy may be formulated. They are not strict rules or requirements and by no means can supplant or take the place of statutory rules or policies that have been formulated, if any. These principles are dynamic in nature very much like a spectrum and their application and ambit depends upon the rules, the policy, the nature of the post, and the requirements of service.” Concluding the judgment, the top court said, “We have reached the conclusion that the impugned final Select List dated 10.03.2023 is not contrary to the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ as stipulated in Rule 5(1)(I) of the 2005 Rules.” Therefore, the Supreme Court bench dismissed the present petition.