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

2013 Supreme(SC) 402

KURIAN JOSEPH, R.M.LODHA, MADAN B.LOKUR
SUKHDEV SINGH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


ORDER

1. While granting leave on December 12, 2006, a two Judge Bench (S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.) felt that there was inconsistency in the decisions of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and others vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and others [(1996)2 SCC 363], and Union of India and another vs. Major Bahadur Singh [(2006)1 SCC 368] and consequently, opined that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come up for consideration before us.

2. The referral order dated December 12, 2006 reads as follows:

“The appellant herein was appointed as Deputy Director of Training on or about 13.11.1992. He attended a training programme on Computer Applied Technology. He was sent on deputation on various occasions in 1997,1998 and yet again in 2000. Indisputably, remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports throughout had been “Outstanding” or “Very good”. He, however, in two years i.e. 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 obtained only “Good” remark in his Annual Confidential Report. The effect of such a downgrading falls for our consideration. The Union of India issued a Office Memorandum on 8.2.2002 wherein the Bench mark for promotion was directed to be “Very Good”in terms of c






























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