The Madras High Court has reiterated that promotion is not a fundamental right, but consideration for promotion is a fundamental right. Justice S.M. Subramaniam made this observation while dismissing a petition seeking promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).

[17/02, 18:55] sekarreporter1: [17/02, 18:55] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-consideration-for-promotion-fundamental-right-523459
[17/02, 18:55] sekarreporter1: English
[17/02, 18:55] Meta AI: The Madras High Court has reiterated that promotion is not a fundamental right, but consideration for promotion is a fundamental right. Justice S.M. Subramaniam made this observation while dismissing a petition seeking promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).

The court emphasized that while an employee cannot claim promotion as a right, they are entitled to be considered for promotion. The judgment underscores the importance of fair consideration in the promotion process.

Do you want more details on this case or the implications of this judgment?
[17/02, 19:27] sekarreporter1: “JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by C.Kumarappan J.)

The present Writ Appeal has been filed assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.03.2022 by and in which, the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order and directed the appellants herein to notionally promote the respondent herein as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I by including his name in the panel for the year 2000 along with all service and monetary benefits.”

12.In view of the above detailed discussion, we are of the firm view that the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned writ order dated 14.03.2022 made in W.P.No.11568 of 2011.  No costs.

[17/02, 19:28] Meta AI: The Madras High Court has set aside the order of a Single Judge that directed the promotion of a respondent as Rural Welfare Officer Grade-I with retrospective effect from 2000.

The Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan held that the respondent’s promotion was delayed due to his own actions, including taking excessive leave on loss of pay between 1994-1998.

The court noted that the respondent became eligible for promotion only in September 2002 and was promoted in April 2003, which was in line with the rules.

The appeal was allowed, and the Single Judge’s order was set aside.