J&K High Court : Employees Have No Vested Right To Promotion Under Repealed Rules | Promotions Must Follow Rules In Force At Time Of Consideration
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar has held that the process for departmental promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar at the Central University of Jammu is to be governed by the Cadre Recruitment Rules of 2022, not by the earlier Rules of 2016. The Court dismissed the challenge to the impugned notification dated 03.12.2024, holding that there existed no vested right to seek promotion under superseded rules. The Court further declared an earlier writ petition infructuous as the impugned notification in that matter had already been withdrawn and replaced.
The petitioner, employed as a Private Secretary at the Central University of Jammu since 03.06.2014, initially applied for departmental promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar following Advertisement Notification dated 12.07.2019. This notification was issued in accordance with the Cadre Recruitment Rules of 2016 (CRR of 2016), which required a minimum of five years regular service as Section Officer or Private Secretary and prescribed a qualifying written test and skill test. Promotion under these Rules was to be based on service record, Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs), and inter se seniority.
The petitioner sat for the written test conducted on 01.10.2019. However, he alleged that the subsequent skill test, scheduled initially for 15.10.2019 and later postponed to 25.10.2019, was never conducted for Group A posts, which includes the position of Assistant Registrar. He made repeated representations to the University between 2019 and 2023, seeking the publication of inter se seniority lists for Section Officers and Private Secretaries, asserting that this was essential for progression in the promotion process.
In the 15th meeting of the University’s Executive Council on 10.12.2019, it was resolved that departmental promotions would be conducted based on inter se seniority, with the selection process being of a qualifying nature. The Council also noted that the promotion process for the Assistant Registrar post was ongoing. Despite these resolutions, the University did not conclude the promotion process.
The University issued a new notification on 03.08.2023 (impugned in WP(C) No. 2075/2023), inviting applications afresh under the Cadre Recruitment Rules of 2022 (CRR of 2022), thereby superseding the 2019 notification. CRR of 2022 revised the criteria by introducing a merit-based promotion process through written examinations. A further notification was issued on 03.12.2024 (impugned in WP(C) No. 3057/2024), superseding all previous notifications.
The petitioner challenged both the 2023 and 2024 notifications, arguing that the vacancy for Assistant Registrar arose in 2019 and hence, promotions should be governed by CRR of 2016. He contended that the University could not unilaterally change the promotion criteria after the initiation of the selection process. He further relied on the Supreme Court decision in Arjun Singh Rathore v. B.N. Chaturvedi, asserting that posts falling vacant before amendments to recruitment rules must be filled in accordance with pre-existing rules.
The University, in its reply, submitted that the initial promotion process was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, logistical constraints, and administrative issues such as the expiration of the Vice-Chancellor’s tenure. It stated that no promotions were finalized under the 2019 notification and that the new CRR of 2022, circulated by the University Grants Commission, was adopted by the University’s Executive Council in its 19th meeting. Consequently, the University lawfully issued fresh notifications under the amended Rules.
The University further contended that the petitioner had the opportunity to participate in the fresh promotion process initiated under CRR of 2022 but chose not to avail himself of it. Accordingly, it maintained that the applicable Rules at the time of the fresh notification govern the promotion process, and the petitioner had no vested right under the previously initiated but incomplete process.
Justice Sanjay Dhar recorded that “the process of departmental promotion pursuant to notification dated 12.07.2019 was not finalized and no promotion orders were issued in favour of the petitioner.” The Court observed that “a candidate does not have any vested right to get the process completed” and cited settled legal precedent that recruitment processes may be lawfully halted before finalization.
Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the Court stated: “It is a settled law that when the process of recruitment/promotion has not been finalized and culminated into a select list, a candidate does not have any right to appointment/promotion.”
The judgment noted that the Supreme Court in Deepak Aggarwal v. State of UP held: “A candidate has the right to be considered for promotion under the rules in force at the time of consideration.” The Court also recorded that the University’s explanation for halting the process—due to the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of delegated authority, and adoption of new Rules—was “adequately justified” and not shown to be arbitrary or mala fide.
Regarding the applicability of CRR of 2016 due to the vacancy’s occurrence in 2019, the Court observed that reliance on Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Arjun Singh Rathore was no longer legally tenable. Citing State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2023) 3 SCC 773, the Court noted: “The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah... does not reflect the correct proposition of law... and is hereby overruled.”
The Court elaborated that “there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose.” It noted that “the right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates.”
On the petitioner’s reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 17.11.1986 from the Department of Personnel and Training, the Court held: “The aforesaid Office Memorandum is an executive instruction... having no statutory force.” It recorded that neither CRR of 2016 nor CRR of 2022 required promotions to be held annually, and the OM could not override the applicable statutory rules or judicial pronouncements.
Regarding WP(C) No. 3057/2024, the Court stated: “In view of the aforesaid position of law as declared by the Supreme Court... promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar is to be made in accordance with the Rules of 2022.”
The Court concluded that “the contention of the petitioner that promotion... is to be governed by the Rules of 2016, cannot be accepted” and that “the respondent-University has adequately justified the non-conclusion of the departmental promotion process under the Rules of 2016 and the issuance of a fresh notification... in terms of Rules of 2022.”
Accordingly, the Court directed: “WP(C) No. 2075/2023 is dismissed for having been rendered infructuous, whereas WP(C) No. 3057/2024 is dismissed being without any merit.” The Court further ordered that “interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Raghu Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. D.C. Raina, Senior Advocate with Mr. Govind Raina, Advocate
Case Title: Sanjeev Gupta v. Central University of Jammu
Case Number: WP(C) No. 3057/2024 c/w WP(C) No. 2075/2023
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
[Read/Download order]
