Neeraj & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

The present application has been filed by the applicants challenging their exclusion from the provisional panel for promotion to the post of Technician-III.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the provisional panel for the post of Technician-III was declared by the respondents on 18.08.2026 and comprises 34 candidates. It is submitted that the applicants have been excluded from the said provisional panel, despite the fact that they had formed part of the list of candidates who had qualified for consideration by the DPC for further placement in the provisional panel, as declared by the respondents on 30.06.2026.

It is further stated that the applicants had participated in the selection process conducted by the respondents pursuant to Notification No. 25/2025 dated 11.08.2025 for promotion to the post of Technician-III. The applicants had found place in the list of candidates who had qualified for consideration by the DPC. However, their names were subsequently excluded from the provisional panel declared on 18.08.2026. It is also contended that the applicants were not issued any show-cause notice or afforded an opportunity of hearing before their exclusion from the provisional panel.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on advance notice, submits that mere participation in the selection process or inclusion in the list of candidates eligible for consideration does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion upon the applicants.

It is stated that the settled position in law is that an employee has no vested or indefeasible right to promotion merely by virtue of possessing the requisite eligibility or having participated in the selection process. At the highest, an eligible employee has a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure.

It is further argued that, upon consideration by the competent authority/DPC, the applicants did not find place in the provisional panel. No challenge has been raised by the applicants to the selection process itself or to the manner in which the DPC considered the eligible candidates. Consequently, no infirmity in the selection process has been demonstrated before this Tribunal.

The principal ground urged by the applicants is that 11 vacancies are lying vacant in the concerned cadre and, therefore, the respondents ought to be directed to fill up all such vacancies.

We are unable to accept the said contention. The mere existence of vacancies does not confer upon an employee an enforceable right to seek promotion against every available vacancy. The respondents cannot be directed to fill up all existing vacancies irrespective of the availability of eligible and suitable candidates and the requirements of the applicable recruitment/promotion rules.

In the absence of any challenge to the selection process itself, and in view of the fact that the applicants have failed to establish any vested right to promotion or any illegality in their exclusion from the provisional panel, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the action of the respondents at this stage.

Accordingly, no cause of action is made out in favour of the applicants. The application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA stand dismissed. No order as to costs.