IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 738 of 2025 ----- Amrita Madhu Kujur, D/o Late Benedict Kujur, Village- Banskarcha, P.O. Aksi, P.S. Mahuadanr, Banskarcha, District- Latehar, Jharkhand ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy Development, M.D.I. Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2.Director of Primary Education, Directorate of Primary Education, Jharkhand 3.District Education Officer, Latehar, Chandadih, Latehar 4.Principal, R.K. Girls High School, Chandwa, Latehar 5.Principal, Rajkiyakrit High School, Chandwa, Latehar ------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Ms. Nirupama, AC to Sr. S.C.-II …...... 02 / 13.02.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to promote her to Grade- III Clerk as there are vacancies in the establishment. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in Grade-IV post as there was no vacancy in Grade-III. Now as per the petitioner, there exists a vacancy in Grade-III post, thus, she claims to be promoted. 4. The petitioner is claiming for promotion. To get promotion is not a fundamental right, the right is only to be considered for promotion. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla and Others vs. Arvind Rai and Others, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 579 at paragraph 41 has held as under:- “41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty [Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, (1991) 2 SCC 295 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 472] in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below : (SCC p. 299) “4. … There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.” 6. There is nothing in the writ petition to suggest that the respondents have initiated a process to promote any person from Grade-IV to Grade-III post. Further, there is nothing on record which even remotely suggest that any junior to the petitioner has been considered and promoted to Grade-III post. In absence of all these criteria, I am of the opinion, this writ petition is premature. 7. If in future, the respondents initiate proceeding to promote any person from Grade-IV to Grade-III post and if the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria, her case will also be considered with the others. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.