Bank of Baroda's Discretion to Operate Reserve Lists Upheld; Mere Vacancies During List Validity Not an Automatic Promotion Right
In a significant judgment delivered on September 9, 2026, the Delhi High Court has clarified that placement in a Reserve List for promotion does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to promotion merely because vacancies arise during the currency of that list. The court's ruling came in the case of Ravi Kant Thakral vs. Bank of Baroda, where the petitioner challenged the bank's decision not to promote him despite vacancies arising in the cadre of General Manager.
Ravi Kant Thakral, a Deputy General Manager at Bank of Baroda since 1978, was placed first in a Reserve List prepared in May 2016 for promotion to the post of General Manager. The Reserve List was valid until April 1, 2017, and it was intended to address additional vacancies that might arise during the year. The petitioner contended that three vacancies arose between December 2016 and March 2017, and as the first candidate in the Reserve List, he was entitled to be promoted with effect from December 1, 2016.
The bank, however, did not promote any officer from the Reserve List, exercising its discretion under the Promotion Policy. The petitioner argued that past practices of promoting candidates from Reserve Lists created a legitimate expectation for his promotion and that the authorized cadre strength of General Managers was 46, not 43 as maintained by the bank, thereby justifying the vacancies being filled.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, hearing the petition, held that the Bank of Baroda's Promotion Policy clauses 11.8 to 11.10 explicitly provide management discretion to keep vacancies unfilled even when they exist. Clause 11.8 permits the bank to keep vacancies unfilled for administrative reasons. Clause 11.10 authorizes the Chairman & Managing Director/MD & CEO to release promotions from the Reserve List at their discretion and to cancel the list with reasons recorded in writing. The court emphasized that the policy does not make promotion automatic upon the occurrence of vacancies.
The court further noted that the Reserve List was not formally cancelled but expired by its terms. The policy does not require a cancellation order every time a vacancy is left unfilled during the list's currency. The petitioner's reliance on past practice was also rejected as such practices do not create a legal obligation or legitimate expectation to promote every candidate when vacancies arise.
Addressing the petitioner's claim regarding the cadre strength, the court observed that even if the sanctioned strength was 46, the bank's policy allowed for vacancies to remain unfilled, and no individual right to promotion arises merely from cadre strength figures.
The court found no evidence of mala fide or discriminatory conduct in the bank's decision. None of the officers in the Reserve List were promoted, indicating no selective bias against the petitioner.
The judgment also reaffirmed the principle established by the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India that the existence of vacancies does not create a legal obligation to fill them all, and inclusion in a select list does not guarantee appointment or promotion unless the rules specifically provide so.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's position in the Reserve List gave him precedence if the list was operated but did not oblige the bank to operate it or promote him. The judgment underscores the discretionary power of organizations in promotion matters within the framework of their policies and the absence of a vested right to promotion based solely on vacancies arising.
Bottom Line:
Promotion Policy - Placement in a Reserve List does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to promotion merely because vacancies arose during its currency.
Statutory provision(s):
Bank of Baroda Promotion Policy, Clauses 4.2, 11.8, 11.9 and 11.10.
Ravi Kant Thakral v. Bank of Baroda, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2978410
