In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the principle that while a government employee does not have a vested right to promotion, they do have a fundamental right to be considered for promotion if eligible and not disqualified. The judgment was delivered in P. Sakthi vs Government of Tamil Nadu & Others [Civil Appeal No. _______ of 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024)] on 2 May 2025 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Background of the Case
The appellant, P. Sakthi, was appointed as a Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Police on 1 March 2002. In 2019, a notification was issued inviting applications for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the 20% departmental quota reserved for in-service candidates. The appellant, fulfilling the eligibility criteria, applied for consideration under this quota.
However, through a communication dated 13 April 2019 (Annexure P/8), the Superintendent of Police denied him consideration on the grounds of a prior disciplinary punishment imposed on 9 May 2005. The punishment involved the postponement of his next increment for one year without cumulative effect.
The applicable recruitment rules stipulated that only those in-service candidates who maintained a clean service record—barring minor penalties like black mark, reprimand, or censure—were eligible for promotion.
Relevant Facts and Proceedings
The disciplinary action in question stemmed from an incident in which the appellant was alleged to have assaulted a fellow constable during a brawl that occurred off-duty at a check post. Following this, both departmental and criminal proceedings were initiated against him.
However, the criminal case concluded with the appellant’s acquittal. Importantly, the disciplinary punishment was also set aside by the State Government through an order dated 27 November 2009 (Annexure P/4).
Despite the expungement of the punishment and acquittal in the criminal case, the appellant was not considered for promotion in 2019. He subsequently filed a writ petition challenging the denial.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court held that the denial of promotion consideration was unjust, particularly because the punishment that had been cited as the basis for disqualification had already been quashed in 2009.
The Bench noted that:
“It is trite that the employee has no right to be promoted but has a right to be considered, when selections for promotions are carried out, unless disqualified; which right has been impinged, unjustly, in the above case.”
The Court observed that there was no valid impediment to considering the appellant’s claim for promotion, especially when the disciplinary punishment no longer stood on record and the criminal proceedings had ended in acquittal.
Judgment and Directions
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed that the appellant be considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police as per the 2019 notification, disregarding any age-related disqualification that may have arisen in the interim.
The Court further directed that if found eligible, the appellant shall be granted promotion retrospectively from 2019 and be paid all consequential service and monetary benefits.
The judgment concluded with the disposal of all pending applications in the matter.
