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

2006 Supreme(SC) 376

B.N.AGARWAL, P.P.NAOLEKAR
GOPI CHAND VISHNOI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appellant was refused promotion in the year 1985 on the ground that there were certain adverse entries in his service records. Thereafter in the year 1989, after the adverse entries were expunged, his case was again taken up for promotion and he was granted promotion with effect from 6-6-1989. The appellant then moved the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") and his grievance was that as the only ground for refusing promotion to the appellant in the year 1985 was adverse entries and the same having been expunged, he should have been granted promotion with effect from 11-7-1985 instead of 6-6-1989, on which day his juniors were granted promotion. The Tribunal dismissed the petition and the same has been confirmed by the High Court in the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

4. Undisputedly, the promotion to the appellant for the higher post was refused in the year 1985 on the sole ground that there were certain adverse entries in his service record and the same having been expunged and in the year 1989 he was found fit and granted promotion. The appellant's juniors have b




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