Promotion of ineligible candidate violating the principle of seniority cum merit

This article discusses the legality of granting promotion to an ineligible candidate in violation of the principle of seniority-cum-merit. It examines the rights of eligible employees, the scope of judicial review in service matters, and the circumstances in which a promotion order may be challenged before the High Court or service tribunal on the grounds of arbitrariness, discrimination, or breach of statutory service rules.

Can I challenge the promotion of ineligible candidates violating the principle of seniority cum merit because I have not been promoted despite having merit. There were five posts to be filled by promotion. One person is promoted without fulfilling the minimum educational qualification. In this case, I submitted my objection when the final seniority list was published by the departmental promotion committee. But they did nothing about my objection but passed a promotion order. I am on the waiting list. Now I want to challenge the order.

 Asked from: Uttar Pradesh

When the criteria for promotion was seniority cum merit, that promotion cannot be done only on the basis of seniority. The merit also included and the DPC had to consider the merit of the candidate belonging to feeder cadre. 

It is well established that the principle of seniority-cum-merit for promotion is distinct from both the principle of seniority and the principle of merit-cum-seniority. When promotion is based solely on seniority, merit does not play any role. However, under the principle of seniority-cum-merit, promotion is not granted automatically based on seniority alone; merit also plays a significant role.

The standard application of the seniority-cum-merit principle involves subjecting all eligible candidates in the feeder grade (those meeting the prescribed educational qualifications and required period of service) to an assessment process to determine whether they meet the specified minimum merit. Only candidates who meet the minimum necessary merit are promoted, and this is done strictly in the order of seniority.

In Rajendra Kumar Srivastava v. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank, (2010) 1 SCC 335; B.V. Sivaiah vs K A Babu and others (1998) 6 SCC 720, the Supreme Court held that:

while the principle of seniority-cum-merit places greater emphasis on seniority, the principle of merit-cum-seniority prioritises merit and ability, with seniority being less significant. For assessing the minimum required merit, the competent authority may establish the necessary standards and prescribe the mode of assessment for evaluating the merit of eligible employees.

Thus, it is mandatory for the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to establish minimum merit criteria and to consider only those candidates who meet these criteria for promotion under the seniority-cum-merit principle. A candidate who does not possess the minimum required merit or qualifications cannot be deemed fit for promotion. Therefore, such a candidate must not be considered by the DPC, and any promotion order in favor of such an ineligible candidate would be illegal per se.

You should file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashing of the promotion order on the grounds that it violates the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Prima facie, it appears that an ineligible candidate has been promoted in clear violation of the law.

Tags: Promotion

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

Terminated from service for mere misconduct

This legal guidance explains the remedies available to an employee terminated from service for alleged misconduct without proper inquiry or proportional punishment. It discusses principles of natural justice, departmental proceedings, wrongful termination, reinstatement, back wages, and the legal remedies available before labour courts, tribunals, or constitutional courts.

Salary during termination period is illegally stopped by the department

This article discusses the legality of withholding salary during the period of termination or suspension from service. It examines the rights of an employee to claim salary, subsistence allowance, and other consequential benefits where the departmental action is alleged to be arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to service rules and principles of natural justice.

Daily wager service is terminated on misbehavior

This article discusses the legal implications of termination of service of a daily wager on allegations of misconduct or misbehavior. It examines whether principles of natural justice, departmental inquiry, and opportunity of hearing are required before terminating the services of a temporary or daily wage employee, along with the remedies available under labour and service laws.

Terminated from service by following illegal proceedings

This article examines the legality of termination orders passed after defective or unlawful departmental proceedings. It discusses violations of principles of natural justice, procedural irregularities in disciplinary inquiries, denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the remedies available to an employee against illegal termination from service.