WP/39587/2024 of PARTHASARATHY.E.K Vs THE REGISTRAR on 22 September 2026

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Respondents dated 21.10.2024 and consequently seeking a direction to the Respondent herein to consider the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Registrar.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner's name finds a place in the panel year for 2022-2023 for the post of Assistant Registrar. Though his name finds a place, he was not promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar. In the meanwhile, the rule was amended on 31.07.2024, mandating that a person to be promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar must have a PG qualification. Since the petitioner had been considered for the year 2022-2023 panel, the subsequent amendment in the service rule will have no impact against him, as he has got a vested right to be promoted since his name finds a place in the promotion panel list for the year 2022-2023.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a similar impugned order has already been considered by this Court in W.P.No.30533 of 2024 and the challenge was dismissed by this Court.

4. However, the said contention was objected to by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and would submit that though the petitioner was considered for the panel year to the post of Assistant Registrar

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 04:34:24 pm )

WP No. 39587 of 2024 __________

for the year 2022-2023, there was no vacancy. Therefore, though he was in the panel, he could not be promoted and thereafter the 2022-2023 panel also got lapsed.

5. In the meanwhile, when the petitioner is to be considered for promotion for the panel year 2024-2025, before the crucial date, as per the minutes of the Syndicate, the rule was amended, mandating the PG qualification. Since the petitioner did not possess PG qualification, he could not be promoted in view of the amended rules.

6. It is the specific submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner can have no vested right to seek a promotion based upon the old rule after the amendment came into effect and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

8. The short point to be considered in the present writ petition is, whether an employee can seek promotion based upon the old rules on the premise that the vacancy that had existed prior to amendment has to be filled up only based upon the old rule.

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 04:34:24 pm )

WP No. 39587 of 2024 __________

9. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Raj Kumar and Others, reported in (2023) 3 Supreme Court Cases 773, has clarified that the employee can have no vested right to seek a promotion based upon the old service rule though there is a vacancy at the relevant point of time and that the vacancy could not have been filled up due to administrative lapses.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2023) 3 Supreme Court Cases 773 held as follows: “82.A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under:

82.1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah case2 must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein, 82.2.It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the "rule in force" as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates.

82.3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 04:34:24 pm )

WP No. 39587 of 2024 __________

of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old Rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14.

82.4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately.

82.5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases.”

11. As per the ratio of the above judgment, it is amply clear that no one can seek a promotion as a matter of right, that too based upon the old service rule. Admittedly, in the case of the petitioner, when the petitioner was considered for promotion for the panel year 2024-2025, the service rule had been changed, mandating the PG qualification. In the case on hand, admittedly, on the crucial date, the petitioner did not possess the PG qualification.

12. In such view of the position, the petitioner was not considered for the post of Assistant Registrar. While perusing the impugned order, the above factum was explained to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court absolutely does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 04:34:24 pm )

WP No. 39587 of 2024 __________

13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No CDA

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 04:34:24 pm )

WP No. 39587 of 2024 __________

To The Registrar, University of Madras, Chennai- 600 005.

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 04:34:24 pm )

WP No. 39587 of 2024 __________

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. CDA WP No. 39587 of 2024 22-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 04:34:24 pm )