The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that the right to be considered for promotion is not merely a statutory entitlement but a fundamental right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution, when an employee meets all eligibility criteria. This judgment clarifies the legal obligation of state authorities to fairly evaluate eligible candidates for promotional vacancies, reinforcing constitutional safeguards against arbitrary non-consideration.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Anamika Nath, was appointed as a Peon (Grade IV) in the Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kamrup (M), on 25.02.2014. She later transferred to another office within the same department in 2017 on mutual consent, which affected her seniority but not her continuous service. Despite possessing a B.A. degree and meeting other qualifications under the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973, she was not considered for promotion to the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA), even though two vacancies existed.
Procedural History
- 2014: Petitioner appointed as Peon (Grade IV)
- 2017: Transferred to another office within the same department
- 2025: Gradation list published showing petitioner at Sl. No. 20; only two candidates ahead (Sl. Nos. 18 and 20) met educational qualifications
- 2025: Writ petition filed seeking direction for consideration for promotion
- 04.02.2026: Judgment pronounced by the Gauhati High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondent authorities to consider her for promotion to the post of LDA in accordance with the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973, given her eligibility and the existence of two vacancies.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an employee who satisfies all eligibility criteria for promotion under statutory rules has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion under Article 16(1) of the Constitution, even in the absence of a right to promotion itself.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner had completed seven years of continuous service in Grade IV, held a B.A. degree, and met all other qualifications under Rule 12(iii) of the 1973 Rules. He relied on Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab to assert that denial of consideration despite eligibility violates Article 16(1) and constitutes arbitrariness under Article 14. He emphasized that the petitioner was the only eligible candidate among the top 20 in the gradation list.
For the Respondent
The Standing Counsel conceded that the petitioner now met the eligibility criteria due to the passage of time. She did not contest the petitioner’s qualifications but sought to preserve administrative discretion in selection. However, she did not oppose the direction to consider the petitioner, acknowledging the legal position laid down in precedents.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional framework under Article 16(1) and the settled jurisprudence on promotion rights. It distinguished between the right to promotion and the right to be considered for promotion, affirming the latter as a fundamental right. The Court cited Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab to hold that when an employee satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria for promotion, failure to consider them amounts to a violation of equality of opportunity.
"If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be ‘considered’ for promotion, which is his personal right."
The Court rejected any notion that administrative convenience or transfer history could override statutory eligibility. It noted that the petitioner’s transfer in 2017 did not break her continuous service in the same department, and her qualifications remained unchallenged. The existence of two vacancies further strengthened the petitioner’s claim, as the state had a duty to fill these posts through fair consideration of eligible candidates.
The Court also dismissed the argument that promotion must be deferred indefinitely, emphasizing that delay in consideration itself defeats the purpose of the right. The judgment reaffirmed that Article 16(1) mandates procedural fairness and substantive equality in promotional processes.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1) when eligibility criteria are met. It directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to LDA along with other eligible candidates within four months.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Right to Consideration Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now argue that any denial of consideration to an eligible candidate under statutory promotion rules triggers a violation of Article 16(1)
- Administrative discretion cannot override clear eligibility; the state must demonstrate a rational, non-arbitrary basis for exclusion
- Merely stating "selection is discretionary" is insufficient if the candidate meets all criteria
Transfer Does Not Break Continuous Service
- Service in the same department, even across offices, counts as continuous service unless explicitly excluded by rules
- Petitioners should challenge any arbitrary disqualification based on inter-office transfers unless rules expressly prohibit it
- Gradation lists must reflect actual eligibility, not seniority alone
Timely Consideration Is Mandatory
- Delays in considering eligible candidates for promotion may amount to denial of fundamental rights
- Courts may impose strict timelines (as done here: four months) to prevent procedural evasion
- State departments must maintain updated gradation lists and initiate promotion processes proactively upon eligibility
