1990 (2) TMI 300 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of Notification amending rules for promotion to the post of Director (M.E.)
2. Impact of the amendment on the appellant's chances of promotion
3. Right to be considered for promotion vs. right to claim promotion
4. Requirement of a degree for promotion to the post of Director (M.E.)

Issue 1: Validity of Notification amending rules for promotion to the post of Director (M.E.)
The appellant challenged the validity of a Notification that amended the rules for promotion to the post of Director (M.E.), requiring a degree in Engineering as an essential qualification. The appellant, a Mechanical Engineer (Senior) without a degree, argued that the amendment affected his promotion chances. The Tribunal held that the Government had the authority to prescribe qualifications for the post, and the appellant had no vested right to promotion, only a chance. The Tribunal deemed the amendment valid.

Issue 2: Impact of the amendment on the appellant's chances of promotion
The main argument was whether the amendment merely affected the appellant's chance of promotion or his right to be considered for promotion. Citing a previous case, the appellant argued that the right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service. However, the Tribunal held that the amendment did not give retrospective effect as the appellant was not reverted, only his promotion chances were affected.

Issue 3: Right to be considered for promotion vs. right to claim promotion
The appellant contended that he had the right to be considered for promotion, and the amendment deprived him of that right. The Tribunal differentiated between the right to be considered for promotion and the right to claim promotion, emphasizing that the appellant had no vested right to promotion.

Issue 4: Requirement of a degree for promotion to the post of Director (M.E.)
The appellant argued that the degree requirement for promotion to the post of Director (M.E.) was unreasonable, especially considering the promotion path for diploma holders in the drilling stream. The Tribunal upheld the degree requirement, stating that it was within the Government's discretion to set qualifications for the post. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the degree requirement was not unreasonable or unlawful.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the Government's authority to set qualifications for promotions and distinguishing between the right to be considered for promotion and the right to claim promotion. The Court found the amendment to the rules valid and dismissed the appeal.