Seniority Gives No Right To In-Charge Posting, Matter Of Admin Discretion: MP High Court Upholds Contractual Re-Appointment Of Retd Officer

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made it clear that seniority in the cadre gives no right to seek promotion/ in-charge posting, holding that such appointments fall squarely within the domain of administrative discretion.

The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed,

"Entrustment of charge is not a matter of right but a matter of administrative discretion. No statutory provision has been placed before this Court which mandates that the senior-most officer in the lower cadre must necessarily be given charge of a higher post".

The development comes in a petition filed by an Executive Engineer working in the Regional Office of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation, seeking to be entrusted with the charge of Chief Engineer subsequent to the retirement of the incumbent.

Petitioner argued that he was the senior-most candidate of his cadre of Executive Engineers, and upon the retirement of respondent no 2, he was entitled to be entrusted with the charge. But the corporation rather reappointed respondent no 2 on a contractual basis. Subsequently, an advertisement was also issued to fill the post of Chief Engineer.

The petitioner contended that the reappointment of respondent no 2 as well as the publication of the advertisement were illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the MP Trade & Investment Facilitation Corporation (TRIFAC), Rules 2017. Thus, the petitioner sought to quash the order reappointing respondent no 2 as well as the advertisement of December 2, 2025.

The petitioner further submitted that, being the senior-most executive engineer with more than five years of experience, he possessed all the requisite qualifications to be posted on the said post. The actions of the corporation by re-appointing a retired officer on contract and bypassing a senior officer were arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Relying on Rule 5 of the TRIFAC Rules, the petitioner contended that the post of Chief Engineer is to be filled through promotion or deputation from the post of Executive Engineer and therefore, a contractual appointment was impermissible when an internal candidate was available.

The counsel for the Corporation opposed the petition, arguing that seniority alone does not confer a vested right to be appointed as Chief Engineer or Incharge Chief Engineer. Further, the TRIFAC Rules provide for multiple modes of recruitment, including deputation and promotion and do not reserve the post only for promoted employees.

The court noted that the main issue for consideration was "whether the petitioner, merely by virtue of being the senior-most Executive Engineer, had any statutory right to be appointed or entrusted with the charge of Chief Engineer?"

The court, examining the TRIFAC Service Rules, held that the rules specified that the post can either be filled by promotion or by deputation. Further, it prescribes that only an officer with seven years of experience in the post of Superintendent Engineer or equivalent post in PWD/RES/PHE on deputation was eligible.

The bench observed that the petitioner neither had 7 years of experience nor was he appointed as Superintendent Engineer. Therefore, he was not eligible to hold the post of Chief Engineer. The bench highlighted that seniority itself does not confer any vested right to promotion or appointment to a higher post. The appointment to a public post is strictly guided by the statutory provisions.

The bench also emphasized that the petitioner failed to show any statutory provision mandating that the senior-most officer of the lower cadre must be given charge of a higher post.

Further, the court noted that Rule 20.3 empowers the Managing Director to make contractual appointments for a period of six months to meet administrative exigencies. Thus, the bench held that the actions of the corporation were legal and within the statutory framework.

Thus, the court emphasized, "in-charge or ad-hoc arrangements do not create any vested or enforceable right in favour of any employee. It is within the exclusive domain of the administration to decide as to whom such charge should be entrusted, based on experience, suitability and institutional requirements. Judicial interference in such matters is warranted only in cases of mala fides or statutory violation, none of which is established herein".

With these observations, the court dismissed the writ petition and directed the corporation to complete the appointment process to the post of Chief Engineer within six months as contemplated by the Rules.

Case Title: Satyabir Singh v MP Industrial Development Corporation Ltd [W.P. No.49437/2025]

For Petitioner: Senior Adovcate A.K. Sethi with Advocate Ayush Gupta

For Corporation: Senior Advocate Manoj Munshi with Advocate Kushagra Singh

For Respondent no 2: Advocate Aviral Vikas Khare

Click here to read/download the Order