Promotion policy and seniority-cum-merit process upheld as non-arbitrary; no vested right to promotion beyond consideration.

A two-stage promotion process for Air Vice Marshal posts, involving merit-based shortlisting on annual confidential report and board marks followed by seniority-based allocation against vacancies, was described as consistent with a seniority-cum-merit system. The text states that an employee has no vested right to promotion, only a right to be considered, and that promotion criteria are ordinarily a matter of policy unless shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or contrary to Articles 14 and 16. It also notes that a candidate who participates in the process with knowledge of the rules cannot later challenge it after an unsuccessful result, and that superannuation before a vacancy arises does not by itself invalidate the promotion policy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the promotion policy for the rank of Air Vice Marshal, which first prepared a merit list and then rearranged the selected officers in order of seniority against available vacancies, was illegal or arbitrary; and whether the appellant could claim promotion despite the vacancy arising after superannuation.

Analysis: The promotion regime required assessment of eligible officers within the zone of consideration on the basis of annual confidential report marks and board marks, after which the select list was prepared and arranged by seniority for promotion against vacancies. Such a two-stage process was held to be consistent with a seniority-cum-merit based system, because the officers were first short-listed on merit and only then promoted in the order of seniority. The Court held that an employee has no right to promotion, only a right to be considered for promotion, and that fixation of the promotion methodology is ordinarily a matter of policy unless it is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appellant's grievance was treated as a complaint about a lost chance of promotion due to superannuation before vacancy, which by itself did not invalidate the policy. The Court also held that a candidate who participates in the selection process with knowledge of the rules cannot later challenge the same process after being unsuccessful.

Conclusion: The promotion policy was upheld as lawful and non-discriminatory, and the appellant was not entitled to promotion or interference with the Tribunal's order.

---