SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 880

R.P.SETHI, S.SAGHIR AHMAD
State Of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Kameshwar Prasad Singh – Respondent


Judgement Key Points
  • The concept of equality under Article 14 is a positive concept that cannot be enforced in a negative manner; illegality or irregularity committed in favour of one individual or group does not entitle others to claim the same on grounds of denial, and a wrong judgment in favour of one does not entitle others to similar benefits. [IMPORTANT POINTS] (!) [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000045500028]
  • Where initial appointment or promotion is ad hoc, not according to rules, and made as a stopgap arrangement, the period of officiation cannot be counted for determining seniority in the promoted post. [IMPORTANT POINTS][judgement_subject] (!) (!) (!) [1000045500022]
  • Delay in filing special leave petition condoned (679 days) where impugned judgment granted relief against law, likely affecting hundreds of juniors/seniors, to advance substantial justice and undo illegalities, rather than dismissing on technical grounds of limitation. [judgement_act_referred] (!) [1000045500012] (!) (!) (!)
  • Promotion on officiating/ad hoc basis with stipulation that seniority accrues only from date of regular selection by competent board cannot be reckoned from officiating date for higher promotion/seniority claims; High Court not justified in directing otherwise with consequential benefits. [judgement_subject] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000045500014][1000045500015][1000045500016][1000045500017][1000045500023][1000045500024] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Writ petitions claiming seniority/promotion benefits by analogy to prior illegal/erroneous judgments misconceived if not impleading affected seniors, leading to supersession of many (e.g., 168 Inspectors, 407 Dy.SPs); such petitions liable to dismissal. (!) (!) [1000045500006][1000045500024][1000045500026] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000045500029]
  • State careless/negligent in defending cases; while High Court judgments set aside as illegal, relief moulded to protect beneficiary's interests by not withdrawing conferred benefits, not disturbing promotions/IPS appointment, or acting against retired persons with similar benefits, to avoid unsettling settled rights and do complete justice. (!) (!) [1000045500032] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Claim for seniority/promotion over junior promoted out-of-turn under specific rules (e.g., gallantry) untenable if claimant's own promotion was ad hoc/officiating without regular selection. (!) [1000045500001][1000045500023] (!) (!) (!)
  • Seniority in promoted cadre reckoned from substantive promotion date per rules (e.g., Rule 649 selection), not initial officiating/ad hoc date; confirmation follows probation/vacancy availability. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000045500019][1000045500020]

JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-The respondents Brij Bihari Prasad Singh and Kameshwar Prasad Singh and one Ramjas Singh were directly recruited as Sub-Inspectors of Police on 2.1.1966. Brij Bihari Prasad Singh was promoted as Inspector of Police on officiating basis on 16.7.1971 with a clear stipulation that he will not get seniority in the rank of Inspector till selected by the IG s Board. Consequently he actually joined on 22.7.1971. Ramjas Singh was promoted as Inspector on 8.7.1972 in terms of Rule 616(c) of the Bihar Police Manual Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") as he had been awarded gallantry award. On 2.7.1978 Brij Bihari Prasad Singh was promoted as Inspector after selection under Rule 649 and was confirmed as such on 1.4.1982. The aforesaid respondent filed Writ Petition No. 6873 of 1990 in the High Court of Patna praying for direction to the respondents therein to consider his case for promotion to the post of Dy. SP treating his date of promotion to the post of Inspector of Police as 27.7.1971, the date when he joined as Inspector of Police consequent upon his initial promotion on officiating basis. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 30th




































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top