HC says promotion subject to vacancy, not a vested right
10/07/2026
JAMMU, Jul 9: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that promotion in government service is not a vested right and is subject to statutory rules, availability of vacancies, eligibility and administrative policy.
Justice Shahzad Azeem made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by Mohammad Yaseen Khan, a retired driver, who had sought retrospective promotion to the post of Chauffeur along with consequential service benefits.
The petitioner had challenged the note appended to Rule 1 of SRO 28 of 1996, contending that after completing five years of service, he was entitled to automatic promotion to the next higher post.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate B.A. Misri argued that the provision making promotion subject to availability of posts was arbitrary. The respondents were represented by Government Advocate Numan Idrees Malik.
The respondents submitted that the petitioner had already been granted three in-situ financial promotions and could not be promoted as Chauffeur due to the non-availability of a vacancy.
Dismissing the plea, the High Court held that while a government employee has a right to be considered for promotion under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, there is no enforceable right to claim promotion as a matter of course or to seek creation of additional posts.
The Court observed that the petitioner had retired from service on March 31, 2025, and had not demonstrated any financial loss arising from the absence of a functional promotion.
Justice Azeem further held that stagnation or limited promotional avenues in a small cadre cannot be a ground for the Court to rewrite service rules or direct the government to create promotional posts.
"The rider of availability of posts, as provided in SRO 28, is constitutionally valid," the Court observed, adding that while prolonged stagnation may cause hardship, it cannot justify promotion contrary to the governing service rules.
Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the writ petition along with the connected applications and vacated all interim directions.
Share This Story |
|
Comment On This Story |
|
|
|
|