Promotion is a Right to Be Considered, Not a Guarantee: Orissa High Court Strikes Down Order Reserving Traffic SI Posts for Ineligible Employees

Vacancies Must Be Filled as Per Eligibility, Not Expectations – The Orissa High Court has ruled that employees who were not eligible for promotion at the time of recruitment cannot later claim a right to those vacancies by challenging the recruitment process itself. Setting aside a single judge’s order that reserved 50% of Traffic Sub-Inspector posts for departmental promotion, the Division Bench clarified that the right to be considered for promotion exists only if eligibility criteria are met at the relevant time, not retroactively.

Delivering the judgment in State of Odisha & Another v. Harekrushna Nayak & Others, Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha observed, "Promotion is a right to be considered, not an entitlement. Employees who were not eligible for promotion at the time the recruitment process began cannot later claim that those vacancies should have been reserved for them."

By reversing the earlier ruling and restoring the State Transport Authority’s decision to fill 21 Traffic Sub-Inspector vacancies through direct recruitment, the Court has provided a clear interpretation of service rules regarding promotions and eligibility.

A Dispute Over Vacancy Allocation and Promotion Eligibility
The case arose from a communication issued by the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, Odisha, directing the Odisha Staff Selection Commission (OSSC) to fill 21 Sub-Inspector (Traffic) vacancies through direct recruitment.

The respondents—departmental employees aspiring for promotion—challenged this move before the single judge of the High Court, arguing that: As per the Odisha Transport-Traffic and Enforcement (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, 50% of these vacancies should have been reserved for departmental promotion.
By not considering their cases, the State had violated their fundamental right to equality under Article 14 and their right to be considered for promotion under Article 16(1) of the Constitution.
The single judge ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the OSSC to reserve 50% of the posts for departmental promotion and only recruit the remaining through direct recruitment.

Challenging this ruling, the State of Odisha filed an appeal, arguing that the employees seeking promotion were not eligible at the time the recruitment request was made and hence could not claim a right to those vacancies.

"Eligibility is Not Just a Formality, It is a Requirement"
Reversing the single judge’s ruling, the High Court held that the recruitment process must be governed strictly by eligibility criteria prescribed in service rules, and vacancies cannot be held up or reallocated to accommodate ineligible employees.

Justice Arindam Sinha, examining the Odisha Transport-Traffic and Enforcement (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, found that:

•    Rule 4(b) of the recruitment rules does provide for a 50:50 division between departmental promotion and direct recruitment.
•    However, the proviso states that if adequate departmental candidates are not available for promotion in any given year, those vacancies must be filled through direct recruitment.
•    Eligibility for promotion requires five years of service in the feeder post, and the respondents had only been promoted to that post in 2019.
•    As per Rule 8(3), eligibility is determined as of January 31 of the recruitment year, and as of January 31, 2024, the respondents were not eligible for promotion.

Based on these findings, the Court ruled that: "The single judge’s order fails to consider that the respondents were not even eligible for promotion at the time these vacancies arose. The State was fully justified in proceeding with direct recruitment, as required by the rules."

"Right to Be Considered for Promotion Exists Only If Eligibility Criteria Are Met"
The High Court relied on two key Supreme Court judgments to reinforce its conclusion:

•    Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab – The Supreme Court held that while Article 16(1) guarantees an employee’s right to be considered for promotion, this right only applies if the employee meets the prescribed eligibility conditions.
•    Hardev Singh v. Union of India – The Supreme Court ruled that no employee has an absolute right to promotion, only a right to be considered as per the prevailing rules.

Applying these precedents, the High Court held: "There is no violation of Article 14 or 16(1) because the right to be considered for promotion exists only for those who are eligible. Employees who do not meet the eligibility requirements cannot claim that their rights have been violated."

Final Judgment: Single Judge’s Order Reversed, State’s Recruitment Process Restored
Holding that the single judge’s order misinterpreted the rules and wrongly interfered in the recruitment process, the High Court ruled: "The State’s decision to fill these vacancies through direct recruitment was in accordance with the law, as the departmental candidates were not eligible. The recruitment process should proceed as originally planned."

The Court restored the State’s request to the OSSC to fill 21 Sub-Inspector (Traffic) vacancies through direct recruitment and directed that future promotions be conducted as per the prescribed timelines in the recruitment rules.

This judgment in State of Odisha & Another v. Harekrushna Nayak & Others sets a clear legal precedent for recruitment and promotion disputes, ensuring that:

•    Vacancies must be filled strictly as per prescribed eligibility conditions, and not based on seniority or expectation.
•    The right to be considered for promotion is protected under Article 16(1), but it applies only when eligibility criteria are met.
•    Service rules cannot be retrospectively altered to accommodate employees who were not eligible at the time of recruitment.

Justice Arindam Sinha, in his concluding remarks, emphasized: "Promotion is based on equal opportunity, not automatic entitlement. The law protects the right to be considered for promotion, but only when an employee meets the required criteria at the relevant time. Vacancies cannot be held back or reallocated retroactively."

With this ruling, the Orissa High Court has ensured that public recruitment remains fair, transparent, and strictly governed by eligibility rules, preventing undue claims over vacancies that were never available to ineligible candidates.
 

Date of Decision: 17 March 2025