Promotion Rules Cannot Be Altered Midway To Favour Ineligible Candidates, Rules Uttarakhand High Court
A Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit held that the rules cannot be changed midway for an ongoing promotion exercise, and the right to be considered for promotion under the existing rules cannot be defeated by arbitrarily suspending the process to amend the rules and benefit ineligible candidates.
Background Facts
The promotion process to the post of Deputy Director/Chief Agriculture Officer had commenced on 29.12.2020. However, on 31.12.2020, few officers of the Development Branch made a representation to the Agriculture Minister requesting to introduce Single Window System for Class-II posts. The Minister directed the Secretary to suspend the promotion exercise until necessary amendments were made in the Rules.
Consequently, on 14.01.2021, the Joint Secretary issued a letter suspending the D.P.C. meeting, and later on 29.01.2021, the meeting was rescheduled for 02.02.2021, which was again suspended. Aggrieved by this, Two senior-most Group-B Officers in the Agriculture Department filed a writ petition challenging the State Government's decision to suspend the ongoing promotion exercise.
The petition was transferred to the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim, directing that the promotion exercise as it was on 31.12.2020 shall be completed as per the then existing rules. Aggrieved, the State challenged the Tribunal's judgment before the Uttarakhand High Court.
It was argued by the petitioners that the Tribunal's judgment was unsustainable as the process of restructuring of posts had commenced vide notifications dated 26.02.2002 and 02.08.2003, and on 28.05.2010, Single Window System was introduced for Group 'C' posts. The petitioners further submitted that the request for restructuring was made by the Association of Agriculture Officers for Group B posts as well. It was contended that the order passed by the Minister on 31.12.2020 suspending the promotion exercise was not challenged before the Tribunal. Further that the Minister, as executive head of the department, was well within his right to take a decision on the representation as per Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975. The petitioners also submitted that the service rules were amended in 2021 which were not challenged, therefore, promotion has to be made as per the amended rules.
Findings and Observations of the Court
It was observed by the Division Bench that the promotion exercise commenced on 29.12.2020 and D.P.C. meeting was scheduled for 19.01.2021, but in the meantime, representatives of Officers' Association approached the Minister with a representation to stop the promotion exercise and amend the rules. The Minister acted on the representation and directed for suspending the promotion exercise.
It was further observed that as per Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975, the Minister cannot intermeddle in individual recruitment or promotion cases. It was observed that the political executive sets general standards, whereas the civil servants handle specific appointments/promotion to keep public employment fair and free from political favoritism.
It was further observed that if the association had grievance against the ongoing promotion exercise, it could have made representation to the head of the department through proper channel, but directly approaching the Minister was in violation of the conduct rules.
The case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar was relied upon wherein it was held that Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancy arising before amendment in the rules, provided the policy decision is fair and reasonable. Further in Tej Prakash Pathak Vs. Rajasthan High Court, it was held that eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit and the change meets the requirement of Article 14.
Further the judgment in Abhay Kumar Patel Vs. State of Bihar was relied upon wherein it was held that the amendment cannot be implemented in a manner that violates the fundamental right to equality by changing the selection criteria after the selection process has already begun.
It was held by the Division Bench that promotion exercise cannot legally be stalled or delayed solely to bring other ineligible employees within zone of consideration, as service jurisprudence mandates that promotion process must follow statutory rules in force, ensuring fair and equal consideration of eligible persons as per mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
It was further held that senior employees who are otherwise eligible possess a fundamental right to be considered fairly as per the existing prevailing service rules, and bypassing them through irregular scheduling is legally invalid. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Case Name : State of Uttarakhand and others Vs. Priyanka Singh and others
Case No. : Writ Petition Service Bench No. 422 of 2026, WPSB No. 418 of 2025, and WPSB No. 449 of 2025
Counsel for the Petitioners : J. S. Bisht, Standing Counsel
Counsel for the Respondents : Neeraj Garg, Yashpal Singh and S.C. Virmani