The Supreme Court of India clarified that the Constitution does not specify criteria for government servant promotions, leaving this to the discretion of the legislature and executive. The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, highlighted the flexibility in determining promotion norms within the administrative framework.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India addressed the intricate issue of promotion criteria for government servants. The court emphasized the role of the Constitution, the legislature, and the executive in determining the norms for promotions, shedding light on the principles guiding these decisions.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized a crucial aspect of India’s administrative framework: the Constitution’s silence on the specific criteria for granting promotions to government servants.
As stated in the judgment-
“In India, no government servant can claim promotion as their right because Constitution does not prescribe criteria for filling seats in promotional posts.”
This statement elucidates the inherent flexibility afforded to the legislative and executive branches to establish promotion guidelines in alignment with the nature, functions, and requirements of promotional positions.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court elucidated the limited scope of judicial intervention in matters concerning promotion policies. While acknowledging the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure adherence to the principle of equal opportunity enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution, the court affirmed that it cannot overstep its bounds to scrutinize every aspect of promotion policies. The judiciary’s role, as articulated in the judgment, is primarily to intervene only when a policy appears to infringe upon the fundamental principle of equal opportunity.
ALSO READ: SC Upholds Consumer’s ‘Right to Know’ Product Quality Under ‘Right to Health’
The judgment delves into the principle of seniority as a parameter for promotion selection, a longstanding practice grounded in the belief that competence is intricately linked to experience.
Justice Pardiwala, writing the judgment, expounded on this notion, stating-
“It is generally assumed that long-serving employees have shown loyalty to their employer and thus deserve reciprocal treatment.”
However, the judgment also emphasizes the evolving emphasis on merit in promotion criteria. Particularly, in cases where promotions are based on the principle of ‘merit-cum-seniority,’ the court highlighted the prioritization of merit over sheer seniority. This nuanced approach aligns with the contemporary need to recognize and reward competence and excellence in public service.
In the realm of employment and promotion policies, the concepts of ‘seniority-cum-merit’ and ‘merit-cum-seniority’ have long been subjects of discussion and debate. Recently, the Supreme Court shed light on these principles, emphasizing their significance and providing clarity on their interpretation.
“The terms ‘merit-cum-seniority’ or ‘seniority-cum-merit’ are not defined by statute by the legislature,”
-the bench remarked, emphasizing the judicial origin of these concepts. Over the years, through a series of decisions, both at the apex court and in various High Courts, these principles have evolved, particularly in the context of promotion policies across different statutes and service conditions.
The Supreme Court clarified that ‘merit-cum-seniority’ and ‘seniority-cum-merit’ are not mandated by law. Instead, they are products of judicial interpretation, developed while addressing diverse promotion policies. This distinction is crucial as it underscores the flexibility inherent in these principles, allowing for adaptability to varying circumstances.
“The principle of ‘merit-cum-seniority’ and ‘seniority-cum-merit’ are flexible and fluid concepts, similar to broad guidelines within which the actual promotion policy can be developed,”
– the Supreme Court elucidated.
ALSO READ: Right To Life and Liberty|| Supreme Court: Excessive Bail Surety Violates The Accused Right
The emphasis was on perceiving these principles not as rigid regulations but as adaptable guidelines. Additionally, they are not intended to supplant statutory rules or policies but rather to complement them, providing a framework for the development of promotion policies.
