P. Sakthi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu
- Neutral2025 INSC 620
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a departmental punishment imposed on an in-service candidate has been set aside by the competent authority before a promotion notification is issued, the candidate cannot be disqualified from consideration for promotion on the basis of that punishment, even if the recruitment rules otherwise prescribe a clean service record as a condition of eligibility. An employee does not have a right to promotion but has a right to be considered for promotion when selections are carried out, unless he is validly disqualified; and this right to consideration is impaired when the employing authority relies upon a punishment that has already been quashed in denying such consideration.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2025 INSC 620 Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. _______ OF 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.30700 of 2024)
P. SAKTHI …APPELLANT VERSUS
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS
JUDGEMENT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, a Police Constable in the service of the
State of Tamil Nadu is aggrieved with the denial of
consideration for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of
Police. The appellant who was initially appointed on
01.03.2002, was eligible for consideration in the year 2019
when a notification was issued for considering eligible Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.05.02 17:04:27 IST constables for in service promotion in the 20% Reason: Page 1 of 4 CA @ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024 departmental quota. The appellant applied for the same
but by Annexure P/8 dated 13.04.2019, he was denied
consideration since, according to the Superintendent of
Police, he was disentitled as per the rules for reason of a
punishment of postponement of next increment for one
year without cumulative effect, imposed on 09.05.2005.
3. True, the recruitment rules provided for disentitling
an in-service candidate, if they did not have a clean record
of service without any punishment other than minor
punishment of black mark, reprimand and/or censure.
However, the appellant’s punishment was interfered with
and set aside by Annexure P/4 as early as 27.11.2009. The
criminal case lodged against him on the similar set of facts
had also ended in his acquittal.
4. The appellant was proceeded against both
departmentally and under the criminal law for allegedly
having beaten up a colleague when they were posted in a
check post. After duty, some dispute arose between them
and there was a brawl in which the other constable was
injured. This led to a criminal case being lodged in which
he was arrested but later acquitted. The departmental
Page 2 of 4 CA @ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024 proceedings though entered in the finding of guilt with
resultant punishment imposed, the same was set aside in
2009 by the Government as is evidenced from Annexure
P/4. In such circumstances, the appellant could not have
been disentitled from a consideration in the year 2019. The
writ petition was also filed in the year 2019. In the above
circumstances we are of the opinion that the appellant must
be considered for promotion, dehors any disentitlement
due to his having become overaged. The consideration
will be made and if found eligible, he shall be promoted
from 2019 and consequential benefits also shall be paid to
him, since it was not his fault that the authority denied his
consideration for promotion based on a punishment which
had already been set aside. It is trite that the employee has
no right to be promoted but has a right to be considered,
when selections for promotions are carried out, unless
disqualified; which right has been impinged, unjustly, in
the above case.
Page 3 of 4 CA @ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024
5. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 02, 2025
Page 4 of 4 CA @ SLP (C) No. 30700 of 2024
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free