Promotion Not A Fundamental Right, But Consideration For Promotion Is A Fundamental Right: Madras High Court Reiterates

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan however, added that one could not expect mathematical precision from a Government department to consider posting the employee in a particular post to make him eligible for promotion. The court added that in such matters, one had to see if there was any motivated abnormal delay on the part of the Government Department.

“In the administration of Government Department, we cannot expect a mathematical precision of posting of the employee in a particular post so as to make him to have a required eligibility criteria, which depends upon the various factor. What we need to see is that, is there any motivated abnormal delay of deliberate omission in such action?” the court noted.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Government, Rural Development Department against the order of single judge directing the department to notionally promote an employee as Rural Welfare Officer Grade – I by including his name in the panel for the year 2000 along with all service and monetary benefits.

The employee was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in Thanjavur District in April 1994. He was then transferred to Sivagangai District in December 1998 and his probation was declared n May 1999. After the declaration of probation, he was sent to Bhavanisagar training and was posted as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-II.

The state argued that after the employee satisfied the eligibility criteria, he was immediately considered for promotion and there were no lapses on the part of the Department. It was thus argued that the order of the single judge should be interfered with and the promotion given by the department, on the date of completion of the eligibility criteria, could not be found fault with.

The employee, on the other hand argued that there was administrative delay on the part of the department in posting him as Rural Welfare Officer Grade – II which was a requirement for promotion. It was argued that the lapse on the part of the department caused delay in considering the employee for promotion and hence, the order of the judge was well merited and did not require any interference.

The court noted that in the present case, the employee had taken leave on loss of pay for more than 524 days. The court noted that if the employee had diligently worked and passed the departmental exam without delay, he would have been eligible for promotion at a prior point of time. The court added that after being lethargic in his duty between 1994 and 1998, the employee could no suddenly be active in claiming promotion as a matter of right.

The court noted that the department had posted the petitioner immediately when there was a vacancy, with due diligence and had sent him to training within a reasonable time. The court thus opined that there was no abnormal delay in the Department's action.

Finding no malafide on the part of the department, the court concluded that the department's actions could not be found fault with. The court was thus inclined to interfere with the order of the single judge and allowed the department's appeal.

Counsel for Appellant: Dr. S. Surya Additional Government Pleader

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. K. Raja

Case Title: Government of Tamil Nadu and Others v. M Rajesh Kumar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 71

Case No: WA No. 2616 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment