In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India declared that the constitution has no legal protection for a government employee who claims their promotion as a legal right. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud with the assistance of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra addressed the nuances after hearing the appeal for granting upgradation for all government employees. 

 An appeal was lodged regarding the Right To Promotion, the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict inviting ample amount of justification to its side. When there is a violation of the equality principle on the grounds of Article 16 of the constitution, the Court’s intervention in upgrading policies should be restricted and condemned.  

Background Story of The Case

A case titled, Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Mehta & Anr. vs. High Court of Gujarat & ors.(Writ Petition (c) No. 432 of 2023), revolved around promoting civil judges (senior division) to the cadre of District judges of Gujarat. The selection list of March 10, 2023, issued by the High Court of Gujarat, was challenged by the petitioner arguing that the Gujarat High Court has violated the merit-cum-seniority principle as directed in Gujarat State Judicial Service Rule, 2005. 

On May 17, 2023, the court upheld the recommendation made by the Gujarat High Court that on the basis of merit-cum-seniority principle, 65% promotion quota of district judges will be practiced for the promotion of senior civil judges. But as the constitution doesn’t provide any criterion for promotion, the government employees can’t express promotion to be their intrinsic right. 

The court ruled that the policy of endorsement is the domain of legislature (the parliament in the case of the center and state assembly in the case of the state) assembly or executive with a little scope open to the judiciary.

ALSO READ: Sikkim High Court Grants Menstrual Leave

Promotion Issue Principle

The core issue regarding Merit-Cum-Seniority is the biggest contestation as the petitioner complained that the Gujarat High Court didn’t work on this. The petitioner alleged that the high court’s selection method purely prioritized seniority-cum-merit, resulting in a contradiction of its fatherly principle. 

The Supreme Court found that the Gujarat High Court’s ascension process which included suitability test and evaluation of annual confidential reports, judgments, and average disposal rates was in parity with the merit-cum-seniority principle. The court notes that several aspects of a meritocracy like a candidate’s knowledge of the law, ACRs, quality of judgments, and other efficiencies are checked while making decisions.

 Upon holding this, the court observed and clarified that the principle of merot-cum-seniority doesn’t define that seniority is irrelevant. Instead, it implies that merit should play the dominant role but seniority should also be considered when merit and abilities are approximately equal. “Merit-Cum-Seniority” states a greater emphasis on merits and skills whereas seniority has lesser importance in determining eligibility.

In a similar claim and incident of 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that government officials don’t have any fundamental right to get promoted, even if they satisfy the eligibility criteria.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

“Past performance is a relevant factor to judge the merit of the candidate, particularly in promotional posts, since it would indicate the capability of the candidate to discharge their duties effectively. Merely because any person possesses higher qualifications or higher marks in an examination does not mean that they are meritorious than others.”

Supreme Court of India

Reliance was also placed on the plain dictionary meaning of ‘merit’ to underline that in terms of employment, the term should be construed holistically to include character, integrity, dedication towards the tasks, and manner of execution of the work. “However, no government servant in India can claim promotion as their right because the Constitution doesn’t prescribe criteria for filling seats in promotional posts.”

“The Legislature or the executive may decide how to fill vacancies in promotional posts based on the nature of employment and the functions the candidate will be expected to discharge. The courts cannot sit in the review to decide whether the policy adopted for promotion is suited to select the ‘best candidates’, unless on the limited ground where it violates the principle of equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution.”  

“There is always an assumption that long-serving employees have demonstrated loyalty to employimg organisation and so are entitled to reciprocal treatment.” He said over the years, SC has consistently ruled that where the 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.

Justice J.B. Pardiwala