NEW DELHI:
Supreme Court
has said that the
Constitution
is silent on criteria for granting
promotion
to govt servants and ruled that the legislature and executive are free to decide the norms for promotion keeping in view the nature, functions and requirements of a promotional post.
A bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in a recent judgment said, "In India, no govt servant can claim promotion as their right because Constitution does not prescribe criteria for filling seats in promotional posts.
The legislature or the executive may decide the method for filling vacancies to promotional posts based on the nature of employment and the functions that the candidate will be expected to discharge."
It said the judiciary cannot sit in review to decide whether a policy adopted for promotion is apt for selecting the 'best candidates', except on the limited ground where such a policy appeared to violate the principle of equal opportunity, guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution.
While deciding disputes over selection of
district judges
in Gujarat, the bench said the principle of seniority as a parameter of selection for promotion derived from the belief that competence is related to experience and that it limits scope of favouritism.
Writing the judgment, Justice Pardiwala said, "There is always an assumption that long-serving employees have demonstrated loyalty to employing organisation and so are entitled to reciprocal treatment." He said over the years, SC has consistently ruled that where promotion is based on the principle of 'merit-cum-seniority' a greater emphasis is placed on merit. Similarly, in the principle of 'seniority-cum-merit', a greater emphasis is laid on seniority.
"The terms 'merit-cum-seniority' or 'seniority-cum-merit' are not statutorily defined by legislature. These principles are judicial connotations that have evolved over a period of years through various decisions of this court & HCs whilst dealing with matters of promotion pertaining to different statutes and service conditions," bench said.
It was quick to clarify that the above two parameters are not mandatory since these are not backed by law enacted by legislature. These are products of judicial interpretation, which evolved while dealing with different types of promotion policies, SC said.
"The principle of 'merit-cum-seniority' and 'seniority-cum-merit' are a flexible and a fluid concept akin to broad principles within which the actual promotion policy may be formulated. They are not strict rules or requirements and by no means can supplant or take the place of statutory rules or policies that have been formulated, if any. These principles are dynamic in nature very much like a spectrum and their application and ambit depends upon the rules, the policy, the nature of the post and requirements of service," SC stated.
English (US) ·