Promotion to Higher Posts Subject to Recruitment Rules and Medical Fitness, Dismisses Plea for Notional Promotion: High Court of Delhi
In a significant ruling concerning service law and promotion eligibility, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking retrospective promotion in the Border Security Force (BSF). The court emphasized that “administrative procedures, including the framing of recruitment rules and assessing fitness, must be adhered to in service promotions.”
Legal Point of Judgment: The crux of the judgment revolved around the petitioner’s plea for promotion to the rank of Inspector General, Chief Law Officer in BSF. The Court focused on whether the principles of promotion eligibility, legitimate expectation, and the impact of delayed framing of recruitment rules could entitle the petitioner to notional promotion and consequential benefits.
Facts and Issues: The petitioner, who joined BSF in 1984, challenged the rejection of his request for promotion, citing medical fitness standards and the unavailability of recruitment rules as reasons. Despite an unfortunate accident leading to amputation, the petitioner rose through ranks, ultimately aiming for the post of CLO/IG, upgraded in 2013.
Court’s Assessment: The High Court meticulously analyzed several aspects:
Promotion Eligibility: The court observed that eligibility is governed by recruitment rules and medical fitness standards. Any promotion must align with these pre-requisites.
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: The court noted that this doctrine does not automatically confer promotion, especially without a consistent past practice or specific assurance from the authorities.
Delayed Recruitment Rules: Highlighting administrative laxity, the court nonetheless ruled that such delay does not justify retrospective promotion, particularly when the petitioner retired before the rules were framed.
Comparative Seniority and Litigation: The inter-se seniority dispute and pending litigation further complicated the petitioner’s claim for promotion.
Decision: The petition was dismissed, with the Court holding that the petitioner’s claim for the year 2013-2014 lacked merit due to non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria and procedural requirements.
Date of Decision: March 20, 2024
K J S Bains vs. Union of India And Ors.
