Eligibility list entries do not create a vested right to promotion or confirmation; administrative reversion of officiating officers can be valid.

In service law, inclusion in an eligibility list does not create a vested right to promotion, continuance in the higher post, or automatic confirmation, because fitness for promotion remains subject to periodic assessment and competent authority approval. Reversion of officiating circle inspectors to their substantive posts, where they had never been confirmed and the action was driven by administrative exigency rather than misconduct, is treated as a non-punitive service reversion and not a reduction in rank. After reorganisation, the State could act on a provisional integrated seniority list and was not confined to regionwise promotions or reversions. Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Seniority Rules was held inapplicable to invalidate the reversion.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether entry of a sub-inspector's name in the eligibility list conferred an indefeasible right to promotion and continuance as circle inspector, (ii) whether reversion of officiating circle inspectors to their substantive posts amounted to reduction in rank, (iii) whether the State Government was bound to make promotions and reversions only regionwise until final integration of services, and (iv) whether the reversion violated Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Seniority Rules.

Issue (i): whether entry of a sub-inspector's name in the eligibility list conferred an indefeasible right to promotion and continuance as circle inspector

Analysis: The eligibility list was only a basis for considering promotion. The relevant rules showed that fitness for promotion had to be assessed periodically, that promotion could not be claimed as of right, that promoted officers remained on probation for two years, and that confirmation required satisfaction of the competent authority. The mere inclusion of a name in the eligibility list, and even officiation in the higher post, did not create a vested right to promotion, continuance, or automatic confirmation.

Conclusion: No indefeasible right to promotion or continuance arose from inclusion in the eligibility list, and no automatic confirmation followed merely from length of officiation.

Issue (ii): whether reversion of officiating circle inspectors to their substantive posts amounted to reduction in rank

Analysis: The petitioners had never been confirmed as circle inspectors and were reverted not for any fault in conduct or work, but because senior officers returned and had to be accommodated. A reversion made in the course of service exigencies, in the case of officers holding no confirmed right to the higher post, does not amount to punitive reduction in rank.

Conclusion: The reversion did not amount to reduction in rank.

Issue (iii): whether the State Government was bound to make promotions and reversions only regionwise until final integration of services

Analysis: After reorganisation, the State had to be treated as one administrative unit. Section 116(2) of the States Reorganisation Act recognised the competent authority's power to pass orders affecting continuance in office after the appointed day. The Government was therefore entitled to act on the provisional integrated seniority list once prepared, and there was no legal bar or estoppel preventing such action merely because promotions had earlier been made regionwise on an ad hoc basis.

Conclusion: The State Government was not confined to regionwise action and could lawfully proceed on the provisional integrated list.

Issue (iv): whether the reversion violated Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Seniority Rules

Analysis: Rule 2(c) dealt with inter se seniority of temporary appointees and did not expressly regulate reversion. In the special circumstances created by reorganisation, earlier ad hoc promotions had been made without an integrated seniority list, so later reversions based on the provisional list did not amount to unlawful discrimination. The petitioners were shown to be the junior-most according to that list when the reversion orders were made.

Conclusion: Rule 2(c) was not violated, and the reversion was not discriminatory.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the orders of reversion failed on every substantive ground, and the impugned reversions were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Inclusion in an eligibility list does not confer a vested right to promotion or confirmation, and a temporary or officiating promotion may be withdrawn on administrative exigency where the officer has no confirmed right to the higher post.

---