New Delhi, Feb 22: Selecting an employee for promotion and creating a channel for the purpose is the prerogative of the authorities concerned and it is not for the employees to suggest the mode for it, the Supreme Court has said.

"This is a policy decision of the Board and it is the Board which has to decide as to who will be suitable for the post and what should be the channel of promotion for such posts," a bench of Justices AK Mathur and Aftab Alam observed in a judgment.

The Apex Court passed the ruling while upholding an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board against the State High Court's judgment which had directed the Board to consider helpers in the technical wing for promotions in the administrative department.

"It is the prerogative of the Board to decide that what shall be the channel of promotion for technical and non-technical persons", the bench said while holding that the authorities had adopted a rational basis in deciding the promotion avenues of the employees.

The grievance of the employees like helpers in the technical department was that they were made ineligible for any promotion in the administrative cadre on the basis of "Note 3" of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board's Service Regulations, 1967.

The Madras High Court upheld the grievance of the aggrieved employees and directed the Board to consider the promotions of the technical staff in the administrative wing following which the Board appealed in the Apex Court.

The Board took the stand that the promotion channels were decided on the basis of policy decisions taken on May 23, 1980 as per a Government order.

The order said that turners, fitters and machinists possessing NCT (National Council for Training and Vocational Trade) and NAC (National Apprenticeship Certificate) qualifications are not eligible for promotions in the administrative cadre.

It was on the basis of the said decision the employees were recruited hence they cannot complain of any discrimination or violation of rules, the Board contended before the court.

Accepting the argument, the Apex Court observed, "It is not for the incumbent serving as a helper to insist that the Board should amend the regulations which suits him."

The Bench recalled its earlier observations in the P U Joshi case (2003) that a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the state to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to his/her service conditions.

Hence, it quashed the directions of the High Court.