Back
K. M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY
Rama Negi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Leave granted. The challenge in these two appeals is to the judgment dated 22.9.2017 in the Special Appeal Nos.87 and 88 of 2014, filed by Appellant Rama Negi and Special Appeal Nos. 96 of 2014 and 97 of 2014, filed by the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet. The Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court under the impugned judgment dismissed the Appeals and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant Rama Negi's promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in the Cantonment Board was quashed and the Writ Petitions of the respondent no.3, Gopal Ram Arya were allowed.
2. Heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. The Cantonment Board, Ranikhet is represented by Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel. Also heard the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent no.3.
3. As the contentions of the learned counsel are based on the inter se seniority of the two contesting parties, their service details in the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet are reproduced, in the following chart.
| S. No. | Gopal Ram Ar | |||
Promotion – A marred service record, though not an insurmountable bar, must carry some consequences, and it could be a comparative disadvantage in promotion for a selection post.
Promotion based on merit must be prioritized over seniority, requiring a comparative assessment of candidates' qualifications and service records.
The principle of seniority-cum-merit mandates fair consideration for promotions, and failure to do so violates fundamental rights.
Catch-up rule applies when general category senior reaches same promotional grade as reserved category junior on same date; original seniority restored for next unreserved promotion, overriding earli....
Seniority in public service must be determined by the date of first appointment, not by roster points, as per statutory rules.
Promotions in public service must be based on the qualifications of candidates at the time of vacancy occurrence, and not on the timing of appointments or subsequent qualifications of other candidate....
Appointments made in violation of statutory rules are in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are in nullity.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
